The High Court, on companysideration of the entire material placed before it, spelled out a promissory estoppel in favour of the respondent and companycluded as follows To companyclude, we are of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel in order to claim exemption from payment of electricity duty for a period of five years from 16.2.1965 to 15.2.1970 in terms of the assurance of the State Government, dated 1.8.1961.
The companycession shall be applicable only to new generating sets installed during the Third Plan period.
Rather, on the company trary, the view taken is that the respondents indecision in that regard ended and it became decisive on the announcement of the assurance dated 1.8.1961.
Factually it was number disputed before the High Court, that the case of the respondent squarely fall within the scope of the assurance reproduced above since the industrial plant of the respondent had gone into production w.e.f.
It would be for the Government to work out its own companyrse of action on that basis.
As such, the petitioner would cer tainly be entitled to claim exemption in terms of the assurance of the State Government dated 1.8.1961 with effect from the date the paper mill started functioning, namely, 16.2.1965 and the exemption would last for a period of five years upto 15.2.
Whether the respondent was of one mind right from the beginning to set up a power plant, with or without the assurance of the State Government dated 1.8.1961, as assert ed by the State, is neither borne out number is the view of the High Court arrived at from the record.
The respondent was granted an import licence on the strength of which it started negotiation with an Ameri can supplier.
The defence of the State thus raised was rejected by the High Court in the following words We have already dealt with that aspect earli er and we have already held that the petition ers action in setting up a power plant was postponed on account of certain circumstances and ultimately on the advise of the manufac turers who refused to companytinue the guarantee, the petitioner decided to set up its own power plant.
The companyrse of the events set out earlier were number dis puted as such by the appellants before the High Court but it was maintained as number before us, that the respondent would have on its own gone on to install the power plant even without the announcement of the industrial policy dated 1.8.1961.
Since the same was rejected and demands for payment of electricity duty creat ed, the High Court was requested to issue suitable writs, directions and orders cancelling the aforesaid orders and demand numberices and granting exemption from payment of electricity duty in respect of electricity self generated by the respondent during the said period of five years, and also companymanding the State to carry out the assurance and promises made in the said industrial policy dated 1.8.1961 extracted above and then requiring the State to issue a Notification under Section 3 B of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 granting exemption or exception to the respondent from payment of electricity duty and other allied companysequential reliefs.
But in view of the unambiguous and unequivocal assurance given by the State Government on 1.8.1961 we can certainly quash the order of the State Government, dated 15.3.1973 as also the demand numberices, dated 20.3.1973 Petitioners Annex ure 48 and dated 3.4.1973 Petitioners Annexure 50 and leave the matter at that.
To formalise the matter, the respondent had companyresponded with the Government for the grant of the requisite exemption.
3 16 of 1973.
16.2.1965, the generating set put up was new, and had been installed during the Third Plan period.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.1974 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 498 of 1975.
Such view of the High Court was a possible view to be taken on the material placed before it and the inference drawn therefrom companyld be that the respondent had acted on the basis of the assurance.
Finally, the respondent with the companysent of the Government of India and with the aid of the World Bank was able to import the pro duction plant and the power plant and after its installation was able to go on production w.e.f.
In the meantime, the assurance of the State Government, dated 1.8.1961 had already been given and the petitioners action in making a final decision to set up its own power plant can be directly companynected with the State Governments assurance dated 1.8.
While negotiations were in process the Ameri can supplier increased the price.
Before the High Court voluminous documentary evidence was given by the parties in support of their respective pleadings.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUNCHHI, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur whereby the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by Orient Paper Mills Ltd., the sole respondent herein, was allowed and sequally the order dated 15.3.1973 of the State Government declining to grant the respondent exemption from payment of electrici ty duty for the period from 16.2.1965 to 15.2.1970 and pursuant demand numberices dated 20.3.1973 and 3.4.1973 were quashed.
Petition No.
Additionally, it was maintained, in the like manner, that the respondent had number acted to its prejudice on the basis of the aforesaid assurance dated 1.8.1961 and so that doctrine of promissory estoppel was number invokable.
16.2.1965.
The aggrieved State of Madhya Pradesh and its companycerned Officers are the appellants challenging the same The respondent had need to go to the High Court to have an assurance dated 1.8.1961 regarding exemption from payment of electricity duty given by the State of Madhya Pradesh in its declared industrial policy observed, which may well be reproduced here at the outset Where power has to be generated by industri alists themselves, exemption from electricity duty shah be granted for a period of five years from the date of plant goes into produc tion.
Prithvi Raj, Satish K. Agnihotri and Ashok Singh for the Appellants.
Shankar Ghosh, Vivek Gambhir and Parveen Kumar for the Respondent.
