“In Monnet Ispat v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1, this Court while enumerating the principles relating to doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation has clearly held that the protection of legitimate expectation does not require the fulfillment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words, personal benefit must give way to public interest and the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked which would block public interest for private benefit.
In Hira Tikkoo v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (2004) 6 SCC 765, this Court explaining the scope of principle of legitimate expectation has held that the doctrine cannot be pressed into service where the public interest is likely to suffer as against the personal interest of a party.”
– Hon’ble Justice Prafulla C. Pant, State of Haryana v. Eros City Developers Pvt. Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 354 of 2016].