The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Minister's statement did not create a legally enforceable right for the petitioners based on the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol, J.

Whether statement of the Minister alone, as reported in the newspaper, can be made basis for invoking the principle of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, is the core issue which arises for consideration in the present petition.

2. On 14th June, 2018, the daily newspaper “Tripura Observer” carried the following news item, inter alia quoting the statement made by the Minister for Education, Government of Tripura:

“Aiming to implement entire syllabus of NCERT for Class-I to Class-VII in all government schools of Tripura, Education minister Ratan Lal Nath today visited the SCERT office in Agartala to monitor the progress of the translation work of NCERT books.

Speaking with the media persons in front of State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) office on Wednesday afternoon Education minister Nath said that “After formation of new Government, we are thinking in new ways, our students are now lagging behind in all India competitive examinations especially in education sector.”

Nath said that the state government decided to implement the NCERT curriculum in to from class I to VIII and the massive translation of text books is being conducted by SCERT along with other curriculum activities. My visit aims only to review the progress of translation works, he added.

Minister said that the students reading in and passing out from the state government run schools often face obstacles because of differences in curriculum and hence, this initiative of introducing new syllabus is being taken.

Nath told that previous government had implemented only curriculum pattern of NCERT, but the present government is not in favour of any pattern, rather it will implement the entire course material of NCERT entirely.”

(emphasis supplied).

3. Relying thereupon, petitioners, individually and as a body of an association of booksellers and publishers in the State of Tripura, by invoking the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, lay challenge to the action of the State in calling for tenders dated 18th November, 2018 for publication of books for translation of NCERT text books into Bengali medium for Class - IX, for the academic session 2019. The action is consequently to the said assurance made out by the Minister.

4. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, drawing attention of this Court to the passage of legitimate expectation in Halsbury’s laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol.-1(1), contends that expectation may arise from a representation or a promise made by the authority, including an implied representation as also consistent past practice. According to the learned counsel, such legitimate expectation had fructified into petitioners’ legally enforceable right. For invoking the principle of promissory estoppel, petitioners would be well within their right to even plead implied promise. Respondents’ failure to respond to the petitioners’ representation has only reinforced such right. Also there has been favoritism in awarding the contract and most importantly, interest of children stands compromised. In support, reliance is placed on Vasantkumar Radhakisan Vora v. Board of Trustees of the port of Bombay and Anr., (1991) 1 SCC 761 (2 Judge Bengh); State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd.,(2004) 6 SCC 465 (2 Judge Bench); Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd., v. Electricity Inspector & Etio and Ors.,(2007) 5 SCC 447 (2 Judge Bench) and Devi Multiplex and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 132 (2 Judge Bench); Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Status Spinning Mills Ltd. and Anr., (2008) 7 SCC 353 (2 Judge Bench); Union of India and Ors. v. Asian food Industries, (2006) 13 SCC 542 (2 Judge Bench); Lalaram and Ors v. Jaipur Development Authority and Anr., (2016) 11 SCC 31 (2 Judge Bench); R v. Secretary of State for the home Department, ex parte Khan,[1985] 1 AII ER 40; Halsbury’s laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol.16, Page -1017 and Corpus Jurisprudence, Vol. – 3