Acquiescence and Estoppel

  1. Acquiescence and Estoppel are two recognised grounds in presence of which jurisdiction based on equity cannot be exercised — Writ jurisdiction of the High Court is equitable in nature and no relief is granted to a litigant if he himself is instrumental in the making of an order or if he acquiesces in it — He cannot be allowed to turn round and challenge it — Equitable jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of a litigant with objectionable conduct. Abdul Qadir v. Abdul Karim and 4 others 2000 SCR 97 (E)
  2. Acquiescence and estoppel are two recognized modes on the basis of which equitable relief by way of writ cannot be granted.  Azad Govt. & 3 others v. Mrs. Jamshed Naqvi & 2 others 2014 SCR 13 (B) 2000 SCR 97 rel.
  3. Appellant applied for the post, participated in the test and interview but could not qualify — After failing, he challenged the process of selection — Held: appellant has acquiesced and estopped by conduct from challenging the process of selection. Fatima Bibi versus Najma Parveen & others 2016 SCR 15 (A)
  4. Writ — If a person accepts the conditions and later on, after complying the order turns round by claiming that the order be given effect retrospectively, such relief cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction — writ petition is not maintainable. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Sardar Muhammad Rafique  & 6 others 2016 SCR 655 (A) 2000 SCR 97 & 2014 SCR 13 rel.
  5. —writ petition—maintainability of—-the security was not submitted as joint venture by construction firms—in disregard of bidding instructions—plea of acquiescence and estoppel raised with regard to maintainability of writ petition. Held:  It is well settled principle of law that if a party against whom the acquiescence and estoppel is pleaded, was  aware about the dents pointed out by the other party, and even then it has participated in the process without raising any objection then in case of adverse order, such party cannot take an inconsistent position. Plea sustained. Ministry of Kashmir Affairs & Gilgit  Baltistan & another V. M/s ZK Associates (Pvt.) Limited & 4 others 2020 SCR 659 (C)
  6. — It is important to note that both respondents actively participated in the test and interview process without any objection regarding the participation of the appellant, who is a female. Having completed the selection process without achieving the desired outcome, they cannot now suddenly reverse their stance and challenge the legitimacy of the selection process because they acquiesced and estopped by conduct from challenging the selection process. Kanwal Shahzadi vs Muhammad Naeem & others 2024 SCR 348 (M)  2016 SCR 15 & 2001 SCR 282 rel
  7. — application of — employees of AKLASC — golden handshake and lump sum pension package — writ for restoration of pension — petitioners received lumpsum pension package — held: pensioners’ acceptance of package precludes them from contesting it, invoking the legal principles of estoppel & acquiescence — essentially, by accepting the lump sum payments, the petitioners have implicitly affirmed the validity of package, thus barring them from legally challenging it later on. AKLASC & others vs Misdaq Hussain Kayani & others 2024 SCR 23 (A)
error: Content is protected !!