Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Legitimate expectation is considered to be a part of the principles of natural justice. This doctrine will be applicable, if by reasons of existing state of affairs, a party is given to understand that the other party shall not take away the benefit without complying with the principles of natural justice.”
Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 — S. 25 r/w FR 56 — Tenure of Director of Enforcement: Permissibility of continuation of tenure
The case revolved around a special package sanctioned by the Govt. of India for the revival of infrastructural projects which were affected severely due to rise of militancy in Jammu and Kashmir in the 1990s.
“The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation does not have any role to play in matters that are strictly governed by the service regulations. This is an exercise that is undertaken by the State in discharge of its public duties and should not brook undue interference by the Court.”
“When a legitimate expectation of a specific outcome is created by a public authority, the said public authority is required to take into account such expectation created by it when making a decision that affects the interests of the individual or group” –Justice Krishna Murari
Orissa High Court said that it is no doubt true that the Courts have, more often than not, leaned in favour of the students, but as the things stand, a line must be drawn between cases where there have been a bona fide error and cases where the circumstances are dubious.
The Agniveer Scheme will increase the ‘leader to led ratio from 1.1 to 1.28; a ratio that would aspire confidence and would ease the pressure of the forces on the ground.
Kerala High Court observed that concession or benefit of subsidy can be withdrawn prospectively and not retrospectively, by the Government.
“Political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of rule of law.”
“Equity demands that when the State failed to produce an iota of evidence of either financial loss or any other public interest that has been affected, it should be compelled to fulfill its promises.”
Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., while quoting that ‘Promises are meant to be broken’ stated that the law has evolved
Supreme Court: In the case where the Jharkhand Government had failed to give effect to the Industrial Policy and subsequent Notification that
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, MR Shah and BR Gavai, JJ has held that by invoking the doctrine of
Sikkim High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. addressed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of