When doctrine of legitimate expectation is not applicable?

  Madras City Wine Merchants' Association and another  Vs.  State of
T. N. and another (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 509:
“Legitimate expectation may arise­
(a) if there is an express promise given by a public
authority; or 
(b)   because   of   the   existence   of   a   regular   practice
which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue;
(c) Such   an   expectation   must   be   reasonable.
However, if there is a change in policy or in public
interest the position is altered by a rule or legislation,
no question of legitimate expectation would arise.”
                                                    (emphasis supplied)
10] In the light of aforesaid legal position, it is crystal clear that the
petitioners have no legal right whatsoever to insist for consideration of their
applications for regularization on the basis of Government Resolution dated
28­11­1991. Though it is a fact that the applications moved by the petitioners
were pursuant to the said Government Resolution, these applications were
pending when the State Government came up with a fresh policy by issuing
Government Resolution dated 12­7­2011. The mere fact that the petitioners
had applied for regularization in terms of the earlier policy and the said
applications were pending when the new policy came into force cannot be a
ground to hold that the said applications ought to have been considered as

per the earlier policy. The said applications, therefore, have been rightly
decided in the light of Government  resolution dated 12­7­2011 which is
holding the field. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
NAGPUR.
WRIT   PETITION    NO.   6466     OF     2015
Bhagwan Kisan Wagh

V
 State of Maharashtra,


CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

 DATED: 21­-07-­2016.
Citation: 2017(2) MHLJ 425

Print Page