Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on Friday held that courts can interfere only if the decision taken by the authority is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or in gross abuse of power or in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to public interest.
A single-judge bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul recorded these observations after dismissing the plea of an architectural consultancy firm, M/S Creations Architects, Engineers and Interior Designers, seeking quashing of an order issued by Deputy General Manager of JKPCC disallowing them from constructing the office complex for Commercial Taxes Department at Excise and Taxation Department premises in Solina, Srinagar.
The petitioner firm stated that it has accomplished all the work in question and its tendering/retendering is unjustified, making mockery of all the executions, already accomplished on the basis of consultancy provided by it.
It was also averred by the petitioner firm that after architectural and structural design provided by them and accepted by respondent-JKPCC, tendering and retendering of consultancy deprives petitioner-firm of its right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, emanating on the basis of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.
The court while hearing the parties and perusing the material on record noted that once parties enter into contract, they are bound by terms and conditions of the said contract.
“In the present case, no such contract has been entered into,” the court observed.
It was recorded by court that the claimed meetings and negotiations between respondents and petitioner-firm or any inter se communications of respondents or internal meetings of respondent-JKPCC, concerning subject-matter of consultancy etc offered by petitioner-firm, will not per se be construed or interpreted as extending any promise by respondent-JKPCC to petitioner-firm, in as much as there was no formal allotment order issued by respondents in favour of petitioner-firm.
The court while giving reference to the Supreme Court directives in a case titled Jitendra Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and another, reiterated that a legitimate expectation is not the same thing as an anticipation.
“It is distinct and different from a desire and hope. It is based on a right,” the court said.
The court said it is well settled that the concept of legitimate expectation has no role to play where the State action is as a public policy or in the public interest, unless the action taken amounts to an abuse of power.
The court gave reference to a Hindustan Development Corporation case wherein it was pointed out that the court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority, which is empowered to take the decisions under law, and the court is expected to apply an objective standard which leaves to the deciding authority the full range of choice which the legislature is presumed to have intended.
The court while taking note of the law on the subject held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is not applicable in the instant case in as much as there is no foundation for such a claim.
Justice Koul further recorded that the Supreme Court has emphasised that in order to establish a claim of promissory estoppel, it must be proved that there was such a definite promise and not any vague offer which could not been forced.
“In the present case, the petitioner, having regard to all that has been discussed above and well settled legal position, has not been able to make a case to warrant interference in impugned NIT and as a result whereof, writ petition is liable to be dismissed,” the court held.

NUSRAT SIDIQ