SUDIP KUMAR SAHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE do not think that there is anything in this appeal which warrants our interference with the impugned order.

(2.) THE appellant-petitioner has been given the Ijara of the Ferry-Ghat for one year only. He, however, asserts, unilaterally though, that as he and others concerned were given Ijaras for this Ferry-Ghat for not less than three years on earlier occasions, be had a legitimate expectation that on this occasion also the Ijara of the Ferry-Ghat would be for not less than three years.

(3.) THE petitioner-appellant has, however, accepted the Ijara for one year without protest and that being so, his case of legitimate expectation for an ijara for a period of not less than three years can no longer show its head. The: doctrine of legitimate expectation is nothing but a further development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Under this principle if there was a representation or a consistent course of conduct from which a person could reasonably expect that something will be done, and has acted accordingly by altering his position or otherwise, he may have a justiciable cause of action. But as alerady stated, the petitioner has accepted the Ijara for one year without any protest and can no longer, therefore, be regarded to have acted on such legitimate expectation or to have altered his position accordingly.