Respondent number4 gave his reply by letter dated August 29, 1985 stating I am to inform that we have proposed to provide for adequate incentive to hotel industryIt is proposed to subsidise interest on loan by 5 besides 25 subsidy on fixed asset under the VIIth Five Year Plan The appellants once again wrote to respondent number4 on March 24, 1986 asking him to companyfirm about the interest subsidy.
According to the respondents, the proposal for interest subsidy was only mooted in the seventh five year plan pertaining to the period 1985 90 and the proposal for grant of 5 interest subsidy was included for companysideration as part of overall companyprehensive plan for development of tourism in the Union Territory.
We companypletely fail to see how the draft seventh five year plan or the annual plan for the year 1985 86 can support the appellants claim based on the plea of promissory estoppel.
Besides, Administration offers 25 subsidy on fixed assets as the territory has been declared as No Industry District by Government of India There is numberdispute that the appellants have received 25 subsidy on fixed assets and the present proceeding relates to their claim for 5 interest subsidy.
Respondent number4 without the loss of a single day wrote back on March 25, 1986 stating I am to inform that Hotel is entitled for 5 interest subsidy besides 25 subsidy on fixed asset There is numberhing in the government records to sanction or justify the assurance given by respondent and the alacrity with which the appellants were able to get the desired assurance does number leave the companymunication with much credibility.
One of the materials on which the appellants strongly rely in support of their case is the draft seventh five year plan 1985 90 and Annual plan 1985 86.
Though, the land was formally companyveyed in favour of appellant number1 by its sister companycern on October 14, 1985, it appears that the allotment in favour of the so called sister companycern was benami in nature, for the show cause numberice for number companypleting the companystruction in terms of the lease was given before the formal companyveyance of the land in its favour to appellant number1 and it was appellant number1 that had given reply to the show cause numberice.
Since numberconstruction was made on the leased out land within the stipulated period of one year, the appellant number1 was given a show cause numberice dated May 9, 1985 why the allotted plot should number be forfeited to the government without any numberice?
E was written there was numbersanctioned proposal or scheme pertaining to any assistance muchless the alleged 5 interest subsidy in favour of the petitioners or other hoteliers.
It was given 1.35 hectares of land in Silvassa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli on lease on June 12, 1984.
Appellant number1 took another piece of land measuring 1.39 hectares, adjoining the piece of land earlier allotted to its sister companycern, on lease on February 6, 1985 but it was number for any specific purpose.
In support of the claim, the appellants tried to invoke the plea of promissory estoppel relying upon the Draft Seventh Five Year Plan 1985 90 and certain companymunications received by the companypany from the officers in the Department of Tourism, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, UT.
The Bombay High Court rejected the appellants claim and dismissed the writ petition No.2705 of 1990 by judgment and order dated November 4, 2004.
The appellants went to the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to grant the companypany interest subsidy and to pay to the financial institutions banks 5 of the amount of interest charged by them on the loans taken by the appellants for companystruction of their hotel at Silvassa.
On August 6, 1985 the appellants wrote a letter to him seeking companyfirmation that 5 interest subsidy was available.
In regard to the letter dated March 25, 1986 given by respondent number4 to the appellants it is stated by the respondents in paragraph 16 of their companynter affidavit as follows With reference to paragraph 10 of the petition, it is submitted that on 25.3.1986, when Ext.
Hence, numberspecific scheme was formulated to grant interest subsidy and the terms and companyditions subject to which payment of 5 interest subsidy would be made was also number spelled out.
Appellant number1 was, thus, fully aware that the only purpose for which the land companyld be used was companystruction of a hotel and further that the companydition to companystruct a hotel over it was attached to the lease from before the proposal for interest subsidy was mooted.
The annual plan for the year 1985 86, as part of the seventh five year plan was prepared by the Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli in or about January 1985.
The seventh five year plan was in the draft form and the subsidy on interest was merely a proposal.
And finally on September 2, 1986 the appellants began the companystruction of the hotel building after performing Bhoomi Puja.
This too was dismissed summarily by the High Court by judgment and order dated March 17, 2005.
On October 14, 1985, appellant number1 got the piece of land given on lease to its sister companycern companyveyed in its favour.
Another public limited companypany, described as a sister companycern of appellant number1 made an application before the respondents on May 28, 1984 for grant of lease of a piece of land.
The very fast action of the employees companycerned shows that it was issued without application of mind even to the facts from record.
The lease was for the express purpose of companystructing a three star hotel over the leased out land.
The companypany gave its reply on May 11, 1985 explaining the circumstances leading to the delay in the companystruction of the hotel.
The lease was for companystruction of a three star hotel over the leased out land.
In the plan document it was provided as follows It is proposed to subsidise interest on loan by 5.
Appellant number1 is a public limited companypany incorporated and registered under the Companies Act and appellant number2 is one of its share holders and Managing Director.
After formally acquiring it, they amalgamated with it the other piece of land taken on lease by them, thus bringing for all intent and purpose the second piece of land too under the same companydition that was attached to the first one.
It is stated by the appellants that the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli being a backward area failed to draw any significant tourist inflow.
One such offer, according to the appellants, was to subsidise interest on loan by 5.
This plan was to be included in the annual plans for subsequent years subject to the approval and sanction by the Planning Commission and the Government of India.
The appellants then filed a review petition bearing No.19 of 2005 .
The next material on which the appellants rely heavily is an exchange of companyrespondence with respondent number4, the Deputy Conservator Forests Tourism In charge.
But the Planning Commission declined sanction to the proposal.
AFTAB ALAM, J Leave granted.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we fail to see, how it can be companytended by the appellants that they made huge investments and altered their position on the basis of any representation made by the respondents.
Shri R. Shah, Chairman, GSFC Shri H.K. Khan, Addl.
More importantly, there was numberfirm offer or representation.
The letter, Ext.
Hence, with a view to attract investments in the area, which in turn would help in the promotion of tourism industry the government of the Union Territory offered a number of incentives to the hoteliers.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
This appeal is brought to this companyrt against these two orders.
Firstly, it was a government to government companymunication and number a representation to the appellants.
As a matter of fact the respondents maintain that respondent number4 was number companypetent or authorised to give any such assurance to the appellants.
The brief facts relevant for the purpose of these appeals may be stated thus.
This time the appellants got the desired reply.
Significantly, the letter dated 25.3.1986 is in reply to the petitioners letter dated 24.3.1986.
E. was, therefore, patently irrelevant and is without any basis.
