DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL IN QANUN-E-SHAHADAT ORDER, 1984:  ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT:  TYPES OF ESTOPPEL:

OPENING STATEMENT:

“ALLEGANS CONTRARIA NON EST AUDIENDUS” — A person alleging contradictory facts must not be heard.

In its simplest sense, the doctrine of Estoppel precludes a person from denying or negating anything contrary to what has been constituted as truth, either by his own actions, deeds, representations, or by the acts of judicial or legislative officers.

Estoppel is often described as a rule of evidence, but more accurately, it is a rule of substantive law. The rationale behind estoppel is to prevent injustice arising from fraud or inconsistency.

DEFINITION OF ESTOPPEL:

"Estoppel may be defined as a disability whereby a party is precluded from alleging or proving in legal proceedings that a fact is otherwise than it has been made to appear by the matter giving rise to that disability."
— Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Ed, Vol. 16, para 1501, page 1008)

According to Sir Edward Coke:
“An estoppel is where a man’s own act or acceptance stoppeth or closeth up his mouth to allege or plead the truth.”

The term "Estoppel" comes from an old French word "Estoupail", meaning "stopper plug", symbolizing the act of placing a brake on an imbalance in a situation.

BASIS AND OBJECT OF ESTOPPEL:

The doctrine of estoppel is based on the principles of equity and good conscience. Its object is to prevent fraud, secure justice between parties, promote honesty, and prevent a party from approbating and reprobating at the same time.

CONDITIONS TO INVOKE THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL:

To invoke the doctrine of estoppel, the following three conditions must be satisfied:

a) Representation by a person to another
b) The other person should have acted upon the said representation
c) Such action should have been detrimental to the interests of the person to whom the representation was made

In Gyarsi Bai vs. Dhansukh Lal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if the first two conditions are fulfilled, the doctrine cannot be invoked if the third condition is not satisfied.

TYPES OF ESTOPPEL:

i. Estoppel by Silence or Acquiescence
ii. Employment Estoppel
iii. Reliance-based Estoppel:
  a) Promissory Estoppel – where a promise, though unenforceable as a contract, is relied upon
  b) Proprietary Estoppel – concerning disputes over land rights
iv. Estoppel by Deed
v. Estoppel by Record
vi. Estoppel Against Minors
vii. Estoppel by Conduct

(Note: "Estoppel by deed" appears twice; remove one if not intentional.)

DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL IN QANUN-E-SHAHADAT ORDER, 1984:

Section 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 defines estoppel as:

“When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.”

Illustration:
A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it. The land afterwards becomes the property of A, and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title.

NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST LAW:

There is no estoppel against law, and a person cannot take refuge behind the principle of estoppel due to failure to plead and prove the legal facts.

ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT:

The government can also be bound by the doctrine of estoppel. For instance, it may be held liable for promises such as exemptions from taxes where reliance and detriment have been proven.

ESTOPPEL AGAINST PRIVATE PARTIES:

Under Section 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the doctrine of estoppel is applicable to private parties. Courts have upheld the applicability of promissory estoppel even in disputes between private individuals or entities.

NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST STATUTES:

There can be no estoppel against statutory law. Statutory provisions cannot be overridden or ignored due to any prior administrative decision or precedent.

CONCLUSION:

The doctrine of estoppel plays a significant role in ensuring fairness, honesty, and legal consistency. It prevents parties from taking conflicting positions in a legal context, especially where others have relied upon their prior statements or conduct to their detriment. While estoppel promotes justice and equity, it is subject to limitations, such as the non-applicability against statutory provisions or fundamental legal principles. It is a powerful doctrine, but one that must be applied with caution and in accordance with established legal criteria.