Back to Current Issues

ESTOPPEL AND LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION

Deepti Monga, ,

Affiliations
Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
:10.22362/ijcert/2017/v4/i6/xxxx [UNDER PROCESS]


Abstract
Background/Objectives: Estoppels is a rule of evidence which prevents a party from denying the fact which he has already been asserted. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is closely related to the principle of estoppel as both the doctrines are based upon a clear and unambiguous promise. Methods/Statistical Analysis: The methodology which is going to be adopted for the present research work will mainly be based on doctrinal analysis, i.e., the theoretical sources. The theoretical work will relate to the administrative action of the public body; their policies; Constitutional, Legislative, Executive and judicial control of administrative action through the doctrine of legitimate expectation. It is proposed to collect material from the various discipline of Administrative and Constitutional law. It is also pertinent to mention that research will heavily rely on different journals, reviews, and national & international judicial pronouncements. Findings: Legitimate expectation has an important place in the realm of administrative law. It is an integral component of the principle of the rule of law that power should not be exercised arbitrarily. One of the safeguards is provided through judicial interpretation in a long list of cases that this administration discretion is subject to legitimate expectation vested in the people. It cannot be expected that there can be judicial intervention in the policy framing by the executive as it is an essential function belonging to the executive.


Citation
Deepti Monga .(2017).ESTOPPEL AND LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION.International Journal of Computer Engineering In Research Trends,4(6),242-247.Retrieved from http://ijcert.org/ems/ijcert_papers/V4I6005.pdf


Keywords : Legitimate expectation, estoppels, judicial review, natural justice, the rule of law.

References
  	H.K. Saharay (Ed.), M. Monir’s Law of Evidence, volume 2, 1863 (2006).
  	C.D. Field’s (Revised by Gopats Chaturvedi), C.D. Field’s Law of Evidence in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Ceylon, Malaysia and Singapore, vol. 5 at 4249 (12th Edition, 2007).
  	Batuk Lal, The Law Of Evidence, 375 (2004).
  	(1851) 1 SIM (N.3.) 205 at 207 quoted in Denis Browne, Ashburner’s Principles of Equity, 445 (1933).
  	H.W.R. Wade, Administrative law, 64 (1988). 
  	Cited from Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC 188 at 201.
  	Available at: http://www.cili.in/article/viewFile/1544/1130 accessed on February 16, 2009.

  	1880 ILR 5 Cal 669.
  	1905 ILR 29 Bom 580; (1904) 29 Bom 580.
  	Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1880129/ accessed on May 2, 2016.
  	AIR 1968 SC 718. 
  	Id. at 718.
  	AIR 1954 Cal 151.
  	Id. at 156.
  	Hira Industries Ltd. v. State of C.G. and Ors., AIR 2007 Chh 7 at 17.
  	(1969) 1 All ER 904.
  	Available at: http://www.supremeCourtofindia.nic.in/speeches/speeches_2009/Jud cial_Review_of_Administrative_Action at 8 accessed on August 24, 2009. 
  	C.F. Forsyth, “The Provenance and Protection of Legitimate Expectations”, The Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 47, No. 2, 238-260 at 238 (July, 1988). 
  	Bugalo Maripe, “Legitimate Expectations and the Right to a Hearing: Lessons from the George Arbi Case”, Journal of African Law, vol. 42, No. 1 94-100 at 97 (1998).
  	Civil Appeal No. 15/93 (unreported). 
  	Bugalo Maripe, supra note 80 at 96-97.
  	(1985) AC 375: (1985) AC 374 (408-409).
  	(1990) 170 CLR 1.
  	M.A. Ikhariale, “The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations: Prospects and Problems in Constitutional Litigation in South Africa”, Journal of African Law, vol. 45, No. 1, 1-12 at 4 (2001).
.
  	Available at: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-similarities-and-differences between-the-doctrine-of-legitimate-expectation-and-the-doctrine-of estoppel accessed on November 18, 2015.
  	R (Bibi) v. Newham, LBC (2002) 1 WLR 237 at 55 available at supra note 4 at 6.
  	Councils of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Services, (1984) 3 All ER 935 cited from   Navjyoti Co-Group Housing Society v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 155 at 165.
  	AIR 1993 SC 155. 
  	Id. at 155.
  	Haoucher v. Min., (1991) L.R.C. (Const.) 819 (836’) – Australia quoted in Durga Das Basu, Constitutional Remedies and Writs, 367 (1994).
  	Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1 at 66.
  	MANU/SC/0392/2003.
  	MANU /SC/0219/1994.
  	Supra note 31.
  	Id. at 223. 
  	AIR 1999 SC 1801.
  	Id. at 1801-1802.
  	(1979) 2 SCC 409.
  	Id. at 452.
  	(1998) 2 SCC 502.
  	Id. at 509.


DOI Link : Not yet assigned

Download :
  V4I6005.pdf


Refbacks : There are currently no refbacks

Quick Links


DOI:10.22362/ijcert


Science Central

Score: 13.30



Submit your paper to editorijcert@gmail.com

>