Estoppel by Conduct

Estoppel — Under this principle a party cannot be allowed to blow both hot and cold in the same breath. Muhammad Saleem v. Azad Govt. and 4 others 2006 SCR 88 (A)
Writ — the respondent herself moved application for contract appointment. After being unsuccessful in obtaining desired results, she filed writ petition. Held: by her conduct she is estopped from filing the writ petition. The same was liable to be dismissed on the ground of estoppel and acquiescence. Azad Govt. v. Mrs. Jamshed Naqvi & others 2014 SCR 13 (C)
Appellants are components of the Govt. — Notification has been issued by the Government — no proposal or steps taken for withdrawal of Notification has been issued by the Govt. — thus, held: appellants are estopped by their conduct to turn around and take different stand. According to the celebrated principle of law enunciated by the superior Courts, the authority who issued the order, subsequently cannot take stand that order or action taken by him is against law. Minister Forest & 3 others v. Aurangzeb and 12 others 2014 SCR 848 (B) 1996 SCMR 413, rel.
Authority issued the transfer order — after 2 days of its implementation, order was recalled — Held: the departmental authority while passing the transfer order has not taken into consideration the transfer policy and if for the sake of argument, it is admitted that the same is issued in violation of transfer policy despite this the authority has got no legal justification to cancel the acted upon transfer order because the authority itself has violated the policy. Afshan Zareen v. District Education Officer & others 2016 SCR 1207 (A)
The authorities cannot be allowed to take benefit of lapses in the order passed by them because they have themselves committed irregularity and violation of law. Afshan Zareen v. District Education Officer & others 2016 SCR 1207 (B) 2014 SCR 848 rel.
— appointment made by the competent authority on the recommendations of Selection Committee against a permanent vacant post—Held: appellants themselves appointed the respondent against permanent post cannot turn round and take the stand that the appointment was against law or rules or on temporary basis— It is settled principle of law that the authority who while exercising the powers has not considered the law or rules cannot subsequently turn round and claim that the act done is against law or rules. Director Kashmir Institute & another v. Ali Afser Abbasi & others 2017 SCR 869 (A)
—the authority, who has issued the order cannot subsequently take stand that the order issued or action taken is against law— Tariq Rashid & others v. University of AJ&K & 7 others 2019 SCR 766 (D) 2014 SCR 848 & 2016 SCR 1207 ref
—the authority, who has issued any order or done any act cannot subsequently take the stance that the order issued or action taken by him is against law. Inspector General of Police & 2 others v. Syed Shehzad Ali Shah & others 2020 SCR 510 (A) 2019 SCR 766 ref
—On one hand, by accepting the terms and conditions of their service, the appellants kept performing their duties and on the other hand they challenged the same, hence, they acquiesced—now they are estopped by their conduct to file the writ petition. AJ&K Government & 3 others Versus Muhammad Ishaq & 19 others 2021 SCR 23 (K)
—No one can be allowed to blow hot and cold in one breath. Muhammad Shezad Versus Maila Kausar 2021 SCR 702 (B) 2006 SCR 88 rel.
— inconsistent and contradictory pleas and prays in writ petition before the High Court and in appeal before the Supreme Court— Held: this approach is not acceptable as the appellant cannot be allowed to blow and hot and cold at the same time, which also amount to coming to the Court with unclean hands. Appeal liable to be dismissed. Syeda Iffat Bukhari v. Education Department & others 2023 SCR 505 (A)
— Nomination Board itself framed nomination policy and published admission notice by incorporating condition that candidate shall also apply directly online — Nomination Board now cannot turn around with the claim that appearance in the entry test was not the mandatory requirement. Mohattar Bashir Mughal versus Azad Govt. & others 2023 SCR 760 (C) 2020 SCR 510 rel.