Precedents Cited

The appellant's counsel referenced several key cases to support the doctrine of promissory estoppel:

• M.P. Sugar Mills v. State of U.P., AIR 1979 SC 621
• G.S.F.C. v. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1983 SC 848
• M/s. Kothari Oil Products v. State of Gujarat, 1982 (1) 23 Guj LR 20
• G.S.F.C. v. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 1982 (2) 23 Guj LR 49

These cases established that promissory estoppel could prevent a party from reneging on a promise if the other party has relied upon it to their detriment. However, the court found that in the present case, no such explicit promise existed to maintain the appellant's recognition irrespective of policy changes.

Legal Reasoning

The court analyzed the nature of the appellant's recognition, determining it to be a privilege rather than a right. The recognition was contingent upon renewal applications as per evolving government policies. The absence of a statutory provision guaranteeing perpetual recognition underscored the discretionary power of the authorities. The court further negated the applicability of promissory estoppel, emphasizing the lack of an explicit promise or assurance that the recognition would remain unaffected by new policies.

Additionally, the court addressed the appellant's claims of constitutional violations, particularly under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14. It concluded that the termination did not impose unreasonable restrictions and did not discriminate arbitrarily, as the recognition process was uniformly applicable to all similar entities.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the principle that government recognitions and licenses are privileges subject to regulatory oversight and renewal. Entities holding such privileges must adhere to stipulated renewal procedures and are not entitled to perpetual rights absent statutory guarantees. The decision also clarifies the limited scope of promissory estoppel in administrative contexts, emphasizing that unexpressed assurances do not bind authorities to maintain privileges irrespective of policy shifts.

For travel agents and similar professionals, this case underscores the importance of complying with renewal requirements and staying abreast of policy changes to maintain their operational privileges.

Promissory Estoppel

Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine preventing a party from reneging on a promise if the other party has reasonably relied on that promise to their detriment. In this case, the appellant claimed that the authorities made a promise to maintain his recognition, which he relied upon. The court, however, found no explicit promise, thus the doctrine did not apply.

Privilege vs. Right

A privilege is a discretionary benefit granted by an authority, which can be revoked based on certain conditions or policy changes. A right, on the other hand, is an enforceable entitlement that cannot be arbitrarily taken away. The court classified the appellant's recognition as a privilege, subject to renewal, rather than a vested right.

Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution

Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. Article 14 ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The appellant argued that terminating his recognition infringed these articles, alleging unreasonable restriction and discrimination. The court found that the termination was based on established policies applied uniformly, thus not violating constitutional provisions.