Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in Administrative Law: A

Bangladesh Perspective

1. Introduction
Most legal systems are currently facing many administrative law challenges because of the
growth of administrative power. The range of tasks performed by the administration has
increased, so has the potential for arbitrary or unfair action as regards the individual.1The
government is under an obligation to respect the humanity of the others and to treat
the citizens with respect.2 This demand is particularly important in the modern
bureaucratic state, which tends to treat individuals with reference to ‘numbers’ or ‘files’ rather
than as human beings deserving individual consideration.3 Therefore, the argument stressing
the importance of keeping administrative authorities within their limit is transformed in the
administrative context into a claim of practicing different doctrines that debar an administration
from turning out to be an irrational or arbitrary authority. The doctrine of legitimate expectation
has appeared as a new tool to prevent such
arbitrariness or misuses. It is the ‘latest recruit’ to a long list of concepts fashioned
especially by the Western courts for the review of administrative actions.
4

This article focuses on an overview of the doctrine, its scope, and its application as a
check against arbitrary decisions of the administration. In Bangladesh it is true that there is no
general statute like Administrative Justice Act laying down the minimum procedure which
administrative authorities must follow while exercising decision making power. Nonetheless the
court has always insisted that administrative authorities must follow a
minimum standard of fair procedure (ensuring legitimate interest of individual). This minimum
procedure refers to the concept of natural justice which ultimately protects and ensures
legitimate expectation.5 Focusing on this fact, this paper examines how this doctrine has been
integrated into Bangladeshi case laws in the particular setting of Bangladesh's
constitutional-administrative law.

2. An overview of the doctrine of legitimate expectation

The doctrine of legitimate expectation operates as a control over the exercise of
discretionary powers conferred upon a public authority. It is fair to say that the doctrine is
certainly not as established and simple as a person having an enforceable right requiring a
public body in all circumstances to act in a particular way. The law is still developing on a
case-by-case basis both in the context of reasonableness and in that of natural justice. In this
section, we will focus on explaining the doctrine, its scope and its practice in Administrative law.

2.1 Doctrine explained

The doctrine of legitimate expectation belongs to the domain of public law and is
intended to give relief to the people when they are not able to justify their claims on the basis of
law in the strict sense of the term though they had suffered a civil consequence because their
legitimate expectation had been violated.6 The term ‘legitimate expectation’ was first used by
Lord Denning in 19697 and since then, it has assumed the position of a significant doctrine of
public law in almost all jurisdictions.8 The term ‘legitimate
expectation’ means the act or state of expecting; that which is or may fairly be expected; that
which should happen according to general norms or custom or behaviour…9A person may have
a legitimate expectation of being treated in a particular way or of receiving any substantive
benefit by an administrative authority even though he has no
legal right in private law to receive such treatment or benefit. The right to a hearing or to be
consulted, or generally to put in one’s case may arise out of the action of the authority. Thus a
promise made in the shape of a statement of policy or a procedure regularly adopted by the
authority may give rise to what is called legitimate expectation.10 That is,
expectation of a kind which the court now enforces.

There has been some debate as to whether a legitimate expectation of any person in a
particular decision can indeed give rise to a substantive benefit or a mere entitlement to have a
process conducted in a particular way. In its initial stage, the common approach was that
legitimate expectation is only procedural and does not have any substantive impact. However
this traditional approach is loosing dominance with the increasing support for the view that it can
be applied to a benefit which is desired in a particular case. In R v. North and East Devon HA ex
p Coughlan (2001)11 the Court of Appeal significantly clarified the doctrine of substantive
legitimate expectations. This Coughlan case has affirmed substantive legitimate expectation as
a mainstream principle of administrative law.12 With the authority of this expanded view, the
doctrine of legitimate expectation constitutes a procedural as well as substantive rights.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation confers upon persons a right which is enforceable in case
of its denial. But whether an expectation is legitimate or not is a question of fact which has to be
determined not according to claimant’s perception but on some considering factors;13 such as,
clearness and unambiguity of the statement or practice, the impressions-whether the statement
or practice is binding or merely tentative, public interest and so on. In the Case of Madras City
Merchants’ Association v. State of India (1994)14 S.Mohan, J. held as “….(l)egitimate
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.

A comparatively recent decision is found in this regard in Glencar Exploration v. Mayo

County Council (2002).15In this case, Mr. Justice Fenelly propounded that in order to
succeed in a claim based on a failure of a public body to respect a legitimate expectation, the
following three matters need to be established:
“Firstly, the public authority must have made a statement or adopted a position
amounting to a promise or representation, express or implied, as to how it will act in
respect of an identifiable area of its activity.
Secondly, the representation must be addressed or conveyed either directly or indirectly to an
identifiable person or group of persons, affected annually or potentially in such a way that it
forms part of a transaction definitively entered into or a relationship between that person or
group and the public authority, or that the person or group has acted on the faith of the
representation. Thirdly, it must be such as to create an expectation reasonably entertained by
the person or group that the public body will abide by therepresentation to the extent that it
would be unjust to permit the public authority to resile from it.”
These considerations propounded by Mr. Justice Fenelly play vital role in justifying a
claim based on both procedural and substantive legitimate expectation. Thus a past practice or
statement made in the shape of policy, a present action on the basis of such practice or
presentation and a future expectation to continue with it are the preconditions for the doctrine to
be invoked. However as an equity doctrine it is not rigid and extensions or refinements of these
propositions are obviously possible.16

2.2 Scope of the doctrine of legitimate expectation

With the recognition of substantive legitimate expectation, the scope of judicial review of
administrative action on the basis of legitimate expectation has been expanded. But this
expanded view has not yet been applied in a way which permits a person to challenge every
administrative action invoking the principle of legitimate expectation. The claim based on the
principle of legitimate expectation can be sustained only when the challenged decision is found
to be unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary or violative of
principles of natural justice.17 In other words, to fulfill legitimate expectation, the various
interests should be balanced. In Howrah Municipal Corporation v. Ganges Road Company Ltd.
(2004),18 it has been held that no right can be claimed on the basis of legitimate expectation
when it is contrary to statutory provisions which have been enforced in public interest. Thus the
court may uphold the decision taken by the authority on the basis of overriding public interest.19

Legitimate expectation can not prevail against statute.20 There is no legitimate

expectation against statutory regulation.21 That means, if any legislation is passed or
amended in such a way that goes against the regular policy or practice, the person
affected thereby cannot challenge this on the basis of legitimate expectation. If a
legitimate expectation is based on a mistake and that mistake has been made as a result of
erroneous interpretation of any statutory provision, the administrative authority will not be bound
by the expectations.22 In the recent High Court decision in Cork Opera House
PIc v. The Revenue Commissioners (2007),23 Mr. Justice Hedigun had found that the applicant
for judicial review was wrong in law in contending that the Revenue Commissioners had the
power to grant it a retail license to sell beer, wines and spirits under an Act of 1835, and even if
this was not, the applicant nevertheless had an enforceable legitimate expectation that the
Revenue Commissioners would continue to act as they had done for many years, (incorrectly)
granting such a license under the 1835 Act. So a claim based on legitimate expectation does
not operate to confer upon a statutory authority a power which that authority does not have
under the terms of the relevant statute.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation must not be understood that the authority is not able to
change its policy.24 In fact, changing policy can defeat a substantive legitimate expectation if it
can be justified on ‘Wednesbury reasonableness”.25 So, the existence of a policy does not carry
with it an entitlement to prevent the policy-maker from changing that policy - particularly where
there is evidence of a rational and reasonable basis for
doing so, including public interest considerations though the doctrine of legitimate expectation
may require that the way in which policy changes are effected does not breach existing
legitimate expectations.26 In the recent High Court decision in GlenkerrinHomes v. Dun
Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (2007)27 Mr. Justice Clarke stated as
follows:

…..the executive enjoys a constitutional entitlement to change policy… Subject

only to the overall requirement that whatever policies are adopted must be
consistent with their statutory role as defined. It is clear, therefore, that a
legitimate expectation cannot arise to the effect that a policy will not be changed.

Demarcating the scope of the doctrine, the Court held that legitimate expectation gives sufficient
locus standi to the applicant for judicial review.28 But as discussed above, a case of legitimate
expectation would arise when a body by representation or by past practice aroused expectation
which it would be within its power to fulfill. The protection is limited to that extent and a judicial
review can be within that limits. Even if a case of
legitimate expectation is made out, the decision or action of the authority will not be interfered
with unless it is shown to have resulted in failure of justice.29 To sustain a claim based on
legitimate expectation the decision of the authority must be arbitrary or must not come within the
Wednesbury principle. The statement or practice giving rise to the legitimate expectation must
be sufficiently clear and unambiguous, and expressed or carried out in such a way as to show
that it was intended to be binding.30 A statement will not be binding if it is tentative,31 or if there
is uncertainty as to what was said.32

2.3 Evaluating the practice of legitimate expectations in Administrative Law

While evaluating the application of doctrine of legitimate expectation it is worth to note

here the sayings of C.K.Takwani33: “the existence of legitimate expectation may give sufficient
locus standi to a claimant to seek leave to apply for judicial review”. The doctrine in essence
imposes a duty on the authority to act fairly.34 It imposes limits on the arbitrary exercise of
power by the administrative authority. It is also an important factor in answering the question
whether a decision once given can be withdrawn or modified and also provides a legal basis for
holding that administrative authorities are to aconsiderable extent bound by policy rules,
promises and past practices. Finally, the principle of legitimate expectations is one of the
principles which is able to cover the administrative authority within the ambit of judicial review.
Consequently, it would be hard to overestimate the importance of the principle of legitimate
expectations.

Nonetheless, this doctrine is not free from criticisms; it has also a downside.35 The main
allegation it does suffer is about its uncertainty. Gio ten Berge36 and Rob Widdershoven37truly
said that usually it is rather difficult to predict in which cases a claim based on the principle of
legitimate expectations will be honoured. Although it is possible to identify in case laws, different
factors that can play a role in answering this question, it is not so
simple to draw out any straight-cut formula on where arises legitimate expectation.
Whether the presentation or past practice is in the nature to arise legitimate expectation; or
whether honouring one person’s legitimate expectation will result in the derogation of public
interest is absolutely a matter of individual concern which involves individual discretion, fact
analysis in every individual case. But a strong defense may be advanced
against this uncertainty is that a legal right ensured and guaranteed by any statute has some
inherent limitations. A statutory right can be applied only on the fulfillment of the conditions
prescribed for its application. But in practice, some unforeseen situations may
arise which can not be covered by any law as it is beyond its scope. A court while dealing with a
claim based on legitimate expectation, it is in each case necessary to weigh the individual
interests that would profit from recognition of the legitimate expectations against the public
interest.38 And thereby it is possible to provide, a ‘tailor made’ judgment39 best suited to the
claimant’s needs. In today’s’ welfare state concept, where existing statutes prove themselves
inadequate to deal with present multidimensional administration, the doctrine of legitimate
expectation comes forward to fill up the nothingness as this doctrine provides a central space
between ‘no claim’ and ‘legal claim’

2nd article

OUTCOME OF THE DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION IN

BANGLADESH

The phrase ‘legitimate expectation’ is judicially approved by our Courts in a number of decisions.
Legitimate expectation gives the petitioners sufficient locus standi for judicial review. There are lots
of cases in our country where the doctrine of legitimate expectation is discussed and well
established.

Relevant Case reference:

The Chairman. Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation v Nasir Ahmed Chowdhurv and Others

The short fact of the case is-The National Cotton Mills Ltd. was incorporated in 1938 as public Ltd.
Company under the Companies Act, 1913 and the Registered Office was at Chittagong. The
Company established National Cotton Milles Ltd. at Halishahar, Chittagong. The majority
shareholders were of erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh and few were Indians and Burmese.
In 1965 upon promulgation of the Defense of the then Pakistan Rule, the Company and its assets
were declared enemy property and the same action of the government was challenged in writ
jurisdiction and thereupon of the government withdraw the notification declaring the property enemy
property. The local shareholders filed Title Suit No.26 of 1966 in the court of Munsif (now Assistant
Judge) Chittagong seeking declaration that the National Cotton Milles Ltd., herein after referred to in
short as the Company was a Pakistani Company and the further relief to place the name of the
Company in the Register of the Pakistani Companies. The said suit was decreed on 3 May, 1966
and the said decree was maintained in appeal as well as in action in terms of law. Laws of the
country need to be enacted after taking into consideration of Article 27 and 31 of constitution of
Bangladesh, where Article 27 prohibits any sort of discrimination and article 31 introduces the aspect
of due process in action to prohibits arbitrary proceeding and protect the interest of the individual.
Thus legitimate expectation might be respected through maintaining Rule of law.

However supreme priority should be given on the fact that a person ought not to be deprived of his
personal liberty or other substantial interest without giving an opportunity of fair hearing before an
independent court. The prime concern of rule of law is like that the power is to be exercised in a
manner which is not unreasonable and detrimental to the legal interest of individual. Because it may
frustrates the legitimate expectation of a person. The case of Bangladesh vs Idrisur Rahman is
mostly related here. It was held that-

“if a right or privilege of a sitting judge sought to be denied citing the provision of Article 111 of the
constitution that will not only be contrary to rule of law but would also be contrary to consultation
being in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 27 and 31 of the constitution.

Further this would also amount to a denial of his right of access to justice which is an inviolable right
secured and ensured in the constitution and equally founded in the doctrine of American due
process of law.”

However in the concluding moment I would prefer to refer a comment by Hilaire Barnett to satisfy the
meaning of Rule of law taking into accord to the legitimate expectation.

The rule of law – in its many guises- represents a challenge to state authority and power, demanding
that powers both be granted legitimately and that their exercise is according to law. According to law
means both according to the legal rules and something over and above purely legality and imputes
concepts of legitimacy and constitutionality. In its turn, legitimacy implies rightness or morality of law
revision filed before the HCD. The shareholders, till nationalization of the Mill in the year 1972
managed the Company. After nationalization under P.O No.27 of 1972, the enterprises were placed
under the management of Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation. As per policy decision of the
Government to denationalize industrial enterprises for the purpose of increasing private
entrepreneurship the Ministry of Industry and Commerce in pursuant to the said policy decision
published notification in the Gazette of 27 September, 1982 notifying that 27 Cotton and textile
Enterprise would be denationalized and the management would be given to the Bangladeshi
national of fulfillment of the conditions specifically mentioned in the Gazette notification.

Md. Ruhul Amin, J observed that, For a legitimate Expectation to arise, the decisions of the
administrative authority must affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which
either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision maker to enjoy which he can legitimately
expect to continue to do until there has been communicated to him some rational grounds for
withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or

(ii) he has received some assurance from the decision maker that it will not be withdrawn without
giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that it should not be withdrawn.
The procedural part of it relates to the representation that a hearing or other appropriate procedure
will be afforded the decision is made. The substantive part of the principle is that if a representation
is made that a benefit of a substantive nature will be granted or if the person is already in receipt of
the benefit that it will be continued and not be substantially varied, then the same could be enforced.
The interest is regard to which a legitimate expectation could be had must be one which was
protectable. An expectation could be based on an express promise or representation or by the
established past action of settled conduct. The representation must be clear and un-ambiguous. It
could be a representation to the individual or generally to a class of person.

Bangladesh Sova-Protein Project Ltd .v. Secretary. Ministry of MDMR

The short fact of the case is- The Government initiated ‘school feeding Programme’ and enters into
contract with the petitioner for supply of soya-protein biscuits to school for a fixed period. On the
expiry of the contract period, the Government discontinued the programme.

The High Court Division held that such discontinuance of the programme, violating its own policy,
was in gross violation of the legitimate expectation not only of the petitioner but also of the millions of
under-nourished children warranting interference of the court and directed the government to
implement its policy decision.
It is submitted that the decision is open to exception. The judgment does not show that there was
any promise in the shape of statement of policy to continue the programme there could not be any
legitimate expectation of anybody of the continuity of the programme. Even if there programme
would have been continued, the petitioner could not have any legitimate expectation of having a
renewed or fresh contract for the supply of soya-protein biscuits.

Rabiab Bashri Irene and another v. Bangladesh Biman Corporation, respresented by MD. & another

The short fact of the case is- all the petitioners are employees of the Bangladesh Biman Corporation
their designation being Flight Stewardess. In the aforementioned two writ petitions there are 18
petitioners, who all joined Bangladesh Biman Corporation on various dates between the 23rd April,
1993 and 2nd August, 1993. The contract of employment for each of the petitioners is exactly in the
same from and terms. On 14th October, 1991 Biman advertised in national papers inviting
applications for post of Flights Stewards/stewardesses and the petitioners applied. The petitioners
having qualified in written and viva voce examination and received written individual letter of offer, all
dated 6th January, 1993 which seats out the terms and conditions of employment. Each of the
petitioners accepts the terms and conditions as contained therein. Thereafter Bangladesh Biman
Corporation issued individual letter of appointment dated 27th April, 1993 to all of them. And they
from the part of a batch of appointees knew as Batch 28. After that they were required to sign
individual contract of employment which were dated 28th April, 1993. Terms and condition of the
letter of appointment and the contract are similar. It has been expressly stated in the letter of offer,
letter of appointment, and in the contract that the employment shall be for a period of five years,
renewable at the discretion of Biman for successive period of three years until the petitioners attains
he age of 35 years. All the petitioners joined their employment submitted Indemnity bond of taka
50,000 each in respect of cost for training and after successful completion of training they were all
posted along with Biman’s permanent staff. The petitioners alleged that on successful completion of
3 years as required they were not absorbed as permanent employees. Admittedly they completed 5
years period required under there individual contract to the satisfaction of Biman.

It is the case of the petitioners that notwithstanding the satisfactory completion of the period of
service required under thee Board Resolution and contrary to the Boards previous practice and
petitioner’s legitimate expectation; they were not absorbed as permanent employees.

It was held that the Resolution of the 17th Board Meeting of the Biman is a statement that can be
said to be statement made by the employer that the petitioner would in due course be absorbed. In
the aforesaid case it has been also observed that it is not that expectation has got to be based on
some contract, it may be based on past practice or any statement whether that forms part of the
contract or not. So the petitioners expectations of being absorbed in the service after satisfactory
completion of five years service cannot but be said to be their legitimate expectation and in all
fairness they should be absorbed in their service.

OUTCOME OF THE DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION IN

BANGLADESH

The phrase ‘legitimate expectation’ is judicially approved by our Courts in a number of decisions.
Legitimate expectation gives the petitioners sufficient locus standi for judicial review. There are lots
of cases in our country where the doctrine of legitimate expectation is discussed and well
established.

Relevant Case reference:

The Chairman. Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation v Nasir Ahmed Chowdhurv and Others

The short fact of the case is-The National Cotton Mills Ltd. was incorporated in 1938 as public Ltd.
Company under the Companies Act, 1913 and the Registered Office was at Chittagong. The
Company established National Cotton Milles Ltd. at Halishahar, Chittagong. The majority
shareholders were of erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh and few were Indians and Burmese.
In 1965 upon promulgation of the Defense of the then Pakistan Rule, the Company and its assets
were declared enemy property and the same action of the government was challenged in writ
jurisdiction and thereupon of the government withdraw the notification declaring the property enemy
property. The local shareholders filed Title Suit No.26 of 1966 in the court of Munsif (now Assistant
Judge) Chittagong seeking declaration that the National Cotton Milles Ltd., herein after referred to in
short as the Company was a Pakistani Company and the further relief to place the name of the
Company in the Register of the Pakistani Companies. The said suit was decreed on 3 May, 1966
and the said decree was maintained in appeal as well as in action in terms of law. Laws of the
country need to be enacted after taking into consideration of Article 27 and 31 of constitution of
Bangladesh, where Article 27 prohibits any sort of discrimination and article 31 introduces the aspect
of due process in action to prohibits arbitrary proceeding and protect the interest of the individual.
Thus legitimate expectation might be respected through maintaining Rule of law.

However supreme priority should be given on the fact that a person ought not to be deprived of his
personal liberty or other substantial interest without giving an opportunity of fair hearing before an
independent court. The prime concern of rule of law is like that the power is to be exercised in a
manner which is not unreasonable and detrimental to the legal interest of individual. Because it may
frustrates the legitimate expectation of a person. The case of Bangladesh vs Idrisur Rahman is
mostly related here. It was held that-

“if a right or privilege of a sitting judge sought to be denied citing the provision of Article 111 of the
constitution that will not only be contrary to rule of law but would also be contrary to consultation
being in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 27 and 31 of the constitution.

Further this would also amount to a denial of his right of access to justice which is an inviolable right
secured and ensured in the constitution and equally founded in the doctrine of American due
process of law.”

However in the concluding moment I would prefer to refer a comment by Hilaire Barnett to satisfy the
meaning of Rule of law taking into accord to the legitimate expectation.

The rule of law – in its many guises- represents a challenge to state authority and power, demanding
that powers both be granted legitimately and that their exercise is according to law. According to law
means both according to the legal rules and something over and above purely legality and imputes
concepts of legitimacy and constitutionality. In its turn, legitimacy implies rightness or morality of law
revision filed before the HCD. The shareholders, till nationalization of the Mill in the year 1972
managed the Company. After nationalization under P.O No.27 of 1972, the enterprises were placed
under the management of Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation. As per policy decision of the
Government to denationalize industrial enterprises for the purpose of increasing private
entrepreneurship the Ministry of Industry and Commerce in pursuant to the said policy decision
published notification in the Gazette of 27 September, 1982 notifying that 27 Cotton and textile
Enterprise would be denationalized and the management would be given to the Bangladeshi
national of fulfillment of the conditions specifically mentioned in the Gazette notification.

Md. Ruhul Amin, J observed that, For a legitimate Expectation to arise, the decisions of the
administrative authority must affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which
either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision maker to enjoy which he can legitimately
expect to continue to do until there has been communicated to him some rational grounds for
withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or
(ii) he has received some assurance from the decision maker that it will not be withdrawn without
giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that it should not be withdrawn.
The procedural part of it relates to the representation that a hearing or other appropriate procedure
will be afforded the decision is made. The substantive part of the principle is that if a representation
is made that a benefit of a substantive nature will be granted or if the person is already in receipt of
the benefit that it will be continued and not be substantially varied, then the same could be enforced.
The interest is regard to which a legitimate expectation could be had must be one which was
protectable. An expectation could be based on an express promise or representation or by the
established past action of settled conduct. The representation must be clear and un-ambiguous. It
could be a representation to the individual or generally to a class of person.

Bangladesh Sova-Protein Project Ltd .v. Secretary. Ministry of MDMR

The short fact of the case is- The Government initiated ‘school feeding Programme’ and enters into
contract with the petitioner for supply of soya-protein biscuits to school for a fixed period. On the
expiry of the contract period, the Government discontinued the programme.

The High Court Division held that such discontinuance of the programme, violating its own policy,
was in gross violation of the legitimate expectation not only of the petitioner but also of the millions of
under-nourished children warranting interference of the court and directed the government to
implement its policy decision.

It is submitted that the decision is open to exception. The judgment does not show that there was
any promise in the shape of statement of policy to continue the programme there could not be any
legitimate expectation of anybody of the continuity of the programme. Even if there programme
would have been continued, the petitioner could not have any legitimate expectation of having a
renewed or fresh contract for the supply of soya-protein biscuits.

Rabiab Bashri Irene and another v. Bangladesh Biman Corporation, respresented by MD. & another

The short fact of the case is- all the petitioners are employees of the Bangladesh Biman Corporation
their designation being Flight Stewardess. In the aforementioned two writ petitions there are 18
petitioners, who all joined Bangladesh Biman Corporation on various dates between the 23rd April,
1993 and 2nd August, 1993. The contract of employment for each of the petitioners is exactly in the
same from and terms. On 14th October, 1991 Biman advertised in national papers inviting
applications for post of Flights Stewards/stewardesses and the petitioners applied. The petitioners
having qualified in written and viva voce examination and received written individual letter of offer, all
dated 6th January, 1993 which seats out the terms and conditions of employment. Each of the
petitioners accepts the terms and conditions as contained therein. Thereafter Bangladesh Biman
Corporation issued individual letter of appointment dated 27th April, 1993 to all of them. And they
from the part of a batch of appointees knew as Batch 28. After that they were required to sign
individual contract of employment which were dated 28th April, 1993. Terms and condition of the
letter of appointment and the contract are similar. It has been expressly stated in the letter of offer,
letter of appointment, and in the contract that the employment shall be for a period of five years,
renewable at the discretion of Biman for successive period of three years until the petitioners attains
he age of 35 years. All the petitioners joined their employment submitted Indemnity bond of taka
50,000 each in respect of cost for training and after successful completion of training they were all
posted along with Biman’s permanent staff. The petitioners alleged that on successful completion of
3 years as required they were not absorbed as permanent employees. Admittedly they completed 5
years period required under there individual contract to the satisfaction of Biman.

It is the case of the petitioners that notwithstanding the satisfactory completion of the period of
service required under thee Board Resolution and contrary to the Boards previous practice and
petitioner’s legitimate expectation; they were not absorbed as permanent employees.

It was held that the Resolution of the 17th Board Meeting of the Biman is a statement that can be
said to be statement made by the employer that the petitioner would in due course be absorbed. In
the aforesaid case it has been also observed that it is not that expectation has got to be based on
some contract, it may be based on past practice or any statement whether that forms part of the
contract or not. So the petitioners expectations of being absorbed in the service after satisfactory
completion of five years service cannot but be said to be their legitimate expectation and in all
fairness they should be absorbed in their service.

North South Property Development Ltd. v. Ministry of Land. Secretary, and another

The short fact of the case is- The respondent No.l decided to undertake a project to develop 47.90
acres of land in Bhasantek area under Dhaka in Cantonment PS for rehabilitation and housing of
slum dwellers low income people. Petitioners had discussion near the end of September, and orally
directed by the State Minister of Land to submit a plant that how hey would be implement the project
the self financing. Petitioner’s was given the understanding that if the plan is approved petitioner
would be given the responsibility to implement the project. Therein after petitioner field an application
to the prime Minister of land setting out the basic layout of project proposal on 30-9-97. Thereafter
on 14-10-97 a meeting was geld on ministry of land. Thereafter petitioner submitted an application
setting out details of the project proposal and lay out plan on 8.11.1997. Thereafter, petitioner had
discussion with an American Investment Company about the project and representative of the said
company visited Bangladesh and agreed to invest in the said project. The project got approval of the
Executive Committee of the National Economic Council. Though respondents were well aware that
the petitioner developed the detail and feasible concept they invited open tender bids from interested
private organizations deliberately ignoring the confidentiality of petitioner’s project proposal by
publishing notice in the newspapers. Though the petitioners were surprised by the said move of the
government if corrected a bid document on payment and deposit of the requisite amounts. On
23.08.98 petitioner received a letter from respondent no.2. Further case of the petitioners is that
respondents having giving assurance to the petitioners and the petitioners spend time, skill and
money for the project on such assurance it created a legitimate expectation of getting the work. But
the respondents acted contrary to petitioner’s legitimate expectation and thus acted illegally and
without lawful authority. Respondents acted in a malafide manner to the detriment of the petitioner by
inviting bid for the second time ignoring petitioner’s valid offer after including the petitioners to
disclose in details its lay out plans and technological know-how and in adopting and publishing the
entire concept as their own. In the above premises notice to hold a second bid is arbitrary, malafide
and without lawful authority fe¬lt was held that, a case of legitimate expectation would arise when a
body of representation or by past practice aroused excitation which it would be within the powers to
fulfill. In a given case whether there are such fact and circumstances giving rise to legitimate
expectation, it would primarily a question of fact.

Kazi Ebadul Haque J said that, we have already seen that the petitioner that there respondents gave
it an assurance to award the contract in its flavor is a dispute of question. So we do not find any
basis for the petitioner’s legitimate expectation .Rather petitioner’s participation in the bid negatives
its claim of legitimate expectation or at least petitioner itself waived its claim. Even if it is conceded
for the sake of argument that petitioner had legitimate expectation to get the contract the decision of
the respondents not to accept petitioner’s loan bid and to invite bids for he second time to attract
more bids appears be in public interest to make the bids competitive and transparent. Even the
notice dated 5-7-98 inviting bids and impugned notice dated 9-10-98 inviting bids for second times
show that the authority reserved the right to accept or reject any bid without assigning any reason.
Thus non acceptance of petitioner’s loan bid cannot be terms as arbitrary, unreasonableness or
malafide. On the other hand, we fiend that Technical Committee having found the technical offer of
the petitioner responsive recommended to consider petitioner’s financial offer if no other better offer
was found after inviting bids for the second time. Thus we find nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in
the conduct of the respondents not to speak of any malafide.

Grihavan Limited v. Government of Bangladesh

It was held that, where one party by words or conduct has made a clear or definite promise which he
knows will be acted upon by the promisee and the latter in fact has acted upon it, then the promise is
binding upon its maker who will not be entitled to back upon it. This principle of promissory estoppels
is available by way of defence and also as a cause of action. This principle is applicable against the
government and a statutory body as well as against a private individual.

Bangladesh. represented by the Secretary, ministry of Food. Bangladesh Secretarial.

Dhaka and others v. Md. Abul Hossain

The short fact leading to this petition is that the writ petitioner Md. Abul Hossain has a rice mill
named Abul Hosain Husking Mill at Shetabganj in the district of Dinajpur. In 1980-81 the Writ
petitioner entered into an agreement with the government for cursing paddy supply by the
government and according to the terms of the agreement he has required to supply 38 seers 10
chataks price for every 50 seers of paddy supplied by the government and the government would
pay the Writ petitioner taka 3.60 for the year 1980-81 and taka 4.60 for the year 1981-82per Maund
of paddy crushed. In the aforesaid two years the govt, supplied inferior quality of paddy as result of
which the petitioner failed to supply the required quantity of rice as stipulated in the agreement and
also due to electricity failure some paddy could not be crushed which were damaged as a result no

rice could be supplied. Stating the above fact and circumstances the petitioner and the other millers
prayed the govt, for exemption for supping deficit quantity of rice but it was not considered. Then the
petitioner prosecuted in Summary Martial Law and was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of taka 15, 50,000/. On representation the govt, stayed
the prosecution and suspends the sentence of the petitioner who had paid 80% or more of the govt,
dues and accordingly the Court released the petitioner but subsequently the President Secretariat
Order was withdrawn and petitioner was again sent to jail. The petitioner then put a representation
the President of Bangladesh on consideration of the same suspended sentence and also there was
an order by the President that the owners of the mill should be given an opportunity to pay arrears
due to the govt, for which they should be supply paddy for crushing and 25% of the crushing charge
would be deducted. And adjust against the due sentenced would be commuted. The petitioner for
cruising paddy of the of the govt. After realization of the entire dues the prosecution could be
withdrawn and year 1991-92 entered into another agreement and was to be supplied the paddy but
the Upazilla Controller of food refused to allot paddy to the petitioner in view of the direction from the
govt, and there was also an direction for taking action against the mill owners including the
petitioner. On getting the said order the petitioner moved to the HCD and obtained the present rule
which was contested by the respondents.
It was held that, the HCD made the rule absolute holding that once privilege is given to a person on
condition of doing any act and if such condition is fulfilled and continues to be fulfilled such privilege
or right can not to be taken away or cancelled without giving him a chance of being heard. In the
instance case no illegality has been committed by the High court division in making the rule
absolute.

Dr. Abeda Beeum and others v. Public Service Commission and others

The short fact of the case is- the petitioners, namely, Dr. Abeda Begum, Dr. Md Borhanuddin
Howlader, Md Fazizur Rahman Khan, Mohammed Rizwan Hashmi, Khondoker Shaheen Hossain,
Farid Ahmed, Md. Jamaluddin, Md Ziaur Rahman, Muhammad Monirul Isalam Khan, Helana Akhter
and Mahfuz Jesmin field the Writ petition challenging the impugned Notice dated 25-6-07 in
excluding the names of the 292 examinees including the petitioners in 23rd BCS ( Special)
Examination, 2000 qualified in all previous written examinations for appearance in the viva voce
examination without giving any valid reason whatsoever. The petitioners are bonafied citizen of
Bangladesh and examinees in the 23rd BCS (Special) Examination, 2000 have successfully passed
preliminary objective test held on 23-3-2001, written examination held on 16-6-2003 and thus they
are all qualified and entitle to appear along with other successful examinees, in the viva voce
examination which having commenced on 6-7- 2003 and continue up to 8-7-2003. There are 292
examinees, including the petitioners from different part of the country, who are aggrieved by the
selfsame arbitrary and malafied action of the respondents and thus the petitioner filed the writ
petition for themselves and on behalf of other aggrieved and seriously affected examinees as the
next friends in representative capacity.

It was held that, the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked if the impudent decision
affected a person by depriving of some benefit or advantage which had been in the past permitted by
the decision maker.

Considering the Government policy decision for welfare and benefit of the children of freedom
fighters to fill up 709 vacant posts of different caders in the service of the Republic as stated above,
the respondent PSC acted arbitrary in excluding the registration numbers of the petitioners from the
impugned order and there by respondent PSC has committed gross violation of the legitimate
expectation not only of the petitioners alone but also the nation who owes a great debt to the
freedom fighters and shahid freedom fighters for the supreme sacrifice made by them in the War of
Liberation and, as such , the aforesaid vacations of the legitimate expectation warrants interference
by the Hon’ble Court for judicial review of the impugned order.
Therefore, after discussion the number of decisions of the cases it clearly indicates that the doctrine
of legitimate expectation is judicially approved by our Courts and Judges and gets assimilated in the
rule of law and operates of our Legal System in this manner and this extent.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation has an important place in the development of law of judicial
review in Bangladesh. It is enough merely to note that a legitimate expectation can provide a
sufficient interest to enable one who cannot point to the existence of substantive right to obtain the
leave of the Court to apply for judicial review.

Supreme Court’Opinion:

When and how an expectation becomes legitimate, should be construed carefully. The means of test
must be standard one. Justice Amirul Kabir Chowdhury Formerly chairman of national Human Rights
Council let a test in Md. Hafizul Islam v. Government of Bangladesh and others in the following way-

“The concept of legitimate expectation is to some extent uncommon in our jurisprudence. The word
‘legitimate’ connotes lawfully begotten. An expectation to become legitimate therefore should not be
sworn of lawful begetting. The concept of legitimate expectation cannot be given such wide
interpretation so as to allow any wishful hope without lawful root.”

A mere fanciful expectation can not be taken to be a reasonable expectation. Even expectation
based on contract or relationship would not be maintainable if it is not clear founded. In Rabia Bashri
Irene v Bangladesh Biman it is seen that the expectation of the petitioner was reasonable in all
respect. It was not mere speculative. The court held that “the petitioner’s expectations of being
absorbed in the service after satisfactory completion of five years service can not but be said to be
their legitimate expectation.