Page 1

1

                            {REPORTABLE}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 3962 of 2011

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.    ……APPELLANTS

  Vs.

SHRI HANUMAN INDUSTRIES & ANR.          ….RESPONDENTS

With CA No. 3963-65/2011 & CA No. 3966-69/2011

JUDGMENT

Amitava Roy, J.

1.  All these appeals seek to impeach the decision rendered by the

Guwahati High Court (Shilong Bench) in a batch of Writ Appeals

preferred amongst others by the respondents herein being aggrieved

by the dismissal of their respective writ petitions, questioning the

refusal of the appellants to sanction financial assistance to them

under  the  “Scheme  of  Promotion  of  Industries  in  North  East”

(SPINE) on the ground of delay and laches.  By the determination

made in the appeals,  the grievance of  the respondents has been

redressed primarily on the basis of the adjudication made earlier by

Page 2

2

the same High Court in Writ Petition(C) No. 279 (SH) of 2007 since

affirmed  by  this  Court  by  Order  dated  01-05-2009  rendered  in

SLP(C) 9578-9584/2009.  

2.    We have heard Dr.  Abhishek Atrey,  learned counsel  for  the

appellant and Ms. N. Saikiya, learned counsel for the respondents.

3.   The individual facts qua the respondents marginally vary and

do not demand separate dilation in the face of the common issues

that  need  to  be  addressed.  Common arguments  have  also  been

advanced.  The pleadings pertaining to Civil Appeal No. 3962/2011,

Union of India and Ors. vs Shri Hanuman Industries & Anr. would,

therefore, be outlined for the factual foundation of the debate.   

3.1   In the year 1997, a policy decision was taken by the Planning

and Development Department, Government of India for promotion

of industries in the North East Region, during the period of 9th Plan

by  providing  inter  alia  a  package  of  incentives  to  create  an

entrepreneurial  environment.  With  this  objective,  a  scheme

nomenclatured SPINE, as above, was launched by the Ministry of

Development  of  North  Eastern  Region,  North  Eastern  Council,

Shilong  (for  short  DONER).  In  terms  of  the  scheme,  The  North

Page 3

3

Eastern Council (NEC) was to provide to the newly set up industries

to  the  extent  of  25  per  cent  of  the  project  cost  or  Rs.  50  lacs,

whichever  was  less  as  deemed  proper  by  the  recommending

authority  on  the  fulfillment  of  the  conditions  stipulated  therein.

The Union of India, represented by the Ministry of DONER and the

NEC were entrusted with the role of implementing the scheme.

4.   In response to this scheme, which was apparently akin to a

State  policy,  the  respondents  on  various  dates  submitted  their

applications accompanied by necessary documents for setting up

their  industries  as  mentioned  therein  inter  alia  disclosing  the

investments made even by obtaining financial accommodation from

banking institutions and otherwise.  According to the respondents

though their applications remained pending and they were made to

understand that the same were being processed as per the norms

applicable,   it  was  noticeable,  that  the  implementing  authorities

were  adopting  pick  and  choose  methods  in  the  matter  of

disbursement  of  the  financial  assistance  to  a  selected  few  by

overlooking their worthy claims.

Page 4

4

5.   It is a matter of record that another set of such applicants with

the  similar  grievance  had  meanwhile  instituted  writ  proceedings

registered as WP(C) 279 (SH) to 285 (SH) of 2007 and eventually as

adverted  to  hereinabove  a  Single  Bench  followed  by  a  Division

Bench of the Guwahati High Court had entertained the challenge

made therein and the implementing authorities of the scheme were

directed to process the applications of the said writ petitioners for

grant of subsidy under it (SPINE) in accordance with law and for

sanctioning the same to each of  them, within a period of  ninety

days from the receipt of the copy of the judgment and order. To

reiterate,  this  Court  by  its  Order  dated  01-05-2009  passed  in

SLP(C)  9578-9584/2009,  declined  to  interfere  with  this

adjudication.

6.   Be that as it may, a learned Single Judge of the same High

Court by judgment and order dated 07-10-2009, rejected the writ

petitions filed by the respondents herein on the ground of delay and

laches, the decision in the earlier proceedings notwithstanding. This

determination,  however,  was reversed in the appeals filed by the

respondents, by the common judgment and order impugned herein,

Page 5

5

whereby  the  direction,  in  the  earlier  proceedings  to  the

implementing  authority  for  processing  the  applications  for

investment subsidy under SPINE in accordance with the law was

reiterated vis-à-vis the present respondents.  Being aggrieved,  the

Union of India and the NEC are before this Court.  

7.   At this juncture, the admitted facts need be noted.  As per the

procedure  prescribed,  the  applications  submitted  by  the

respondents along with the accompanying documents were to be

routed through the Department of Industries of the respective State

Governments  to  be  forwarded  to  the  NEC  by  the  Planning

Department of the State concerned and that no proposal was to be

received directly by the NEC.  

8.   While the said applications were thus pending a letter dated

05-02-2007 was issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Development

of North Eastern Region etc. New Delhi, addressed to the Secretary

North  Eastern  Council,  Shilong  referring  to  various

correspondences  mentioned  therein  pertaining  to  request  for

reports  in  respect  of  alleged  financial  irregularities  in  the

disbursement  of  Grant-in-Aid  under  SPINE  qua  each  unit  for

Page 6

6

inquiry. It was underlined in the said letter that the report had been

sought for to positively reach the issuing Ministry by 15-02-2007.

It was in clear terms mentioned that in view of the pending inquiry

and  decisions  in  connection  therewith,  further

sanction/disbursement  of  Grant-in-Aid  particularly  under  SPINE

should be stopped forthwith. The letter also contained a caveat that

in case the report was not submitted by the deadline of time given,

the matter would be forwarded for investigation.

8.1    The  records  reveal  that  thereafter  in  the  meeting  of  the

Ministry of DONER to review the scheme of the NEC with particular

reference to SPINE held on 21-02-2007, it  was resolved amongst

others  that  a  committee  would  be  constituted  to  monitor  and

evaluate  projects  before  release  of  funds  under  the  SPINE.

Subsequent thereto, the Deputy Secretary, NEC addressed a letter

dated  23-2-2007  to  the  Commissioner  and  Secretary,  Planning

Department  of  the  North  Eastern  States  as  named  therein

intimating about the receipt of a letter from the Secretary, Ministry

of  DONER,  recommending discontinuance  of  SPINE immediately.

The  letter  further  required  that  a  review  of  the  liabilities  be

Page 7

7

undertaken and submitted for necessary decision by the Chairman,

NEC.  That  this  view  of  the  Ministry  of  DONER,  had  also  been

shared with the State Governments, was mentioned. The addressee

was requested to  ensure  that  no new proposal  for  consideration

under SPINE be forwarded to NEC.   

8.2    It  is  noticeable,  that  with  effect  from  01-04-2007,  the

Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  Commerce  and  Industry,

Department  of  Industrial  Policy  and  Promotion  did  approve  a

package of fiscal incentives and other concessions for the northeast

region  named  “Northeast  Industrial  and  Investment  Promotion

Policy  (NEIIPP)  2007”.   Parallely  by  a  communication  dated

04-09-2007, the Government of India, Ministry of DONER reiterated

its  request  to  the  Industries  and  Commerce  Department  of

Government of  Assam to get  the  industries  in the list  appended

thereto,  inspected and reports  submitted to  the  NEC as  per  the

format enclosed.  The letter disclosed that a formal meeting of the

Committee in this regard would consider and recommend further

release  to  the  said  industries.  It  was  thereafter  that  the  same

Ministry i.e. of DONER vide its letter dated 01-10-2007 addressed

Page 8

8

to  the  Commissioner  and  Secretary,  Planning  and  Development,

Assam  while  referring  to  its  earlier  letter  dated  23-02-2007,

conveyed that as the proposals pending at the time of closure of

SPINE could no longer be processed, it had been decided that the

same be returned to the State Governments. Thereby a list of the

pending proposals, State-wise, was forwarded with the observation

that  the  Units  concerned  could  take  the  benefit  of  Northeast

Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy 2007(NEIIPP – 2007).  It

was assured that the relevant papers would be returned at a later

date.  The list appended amongst others contained the names of the

respondent units involved in the present proceedings.  It  is thus

apparent  from  the  communication  dated  01-10-2007  and  the

annexures  thereto  that  at  the  time  of  the  issuance  thereof

indicating the closure of SPINE, the proposals vis-à-vis these units

had remained pending and were not processed as per the procedure

prescribed.  In the contemporary context, the media also flashed the

decision of withdrawal of SPINE at or about the same time.  Prior to

these developments, the working group on NEC while deliberating

upon  the  related  issues  for  the  11th Five  Year  Plan  held  on

22-06-2006,  however,  had  recommended  continuance  of  SPINE

Page 9

9

with improved guidelines to block loopholes, increase opportunities

for  generating local  employment and expedite industrialisation of

the  region.  This  recommendation,  however,  needless  to  mention,

has to be construed in the backdrop of the decision for closure of

SPINE  as  was  taken  and  communicated  vide  the  letters  dated

23-2-2007 and 01-10-2007 alluded hereinabove.  

9.    Exasperated by the delay in the grant of the incentives under

SPINE, to reiterate, several similarly situated industrial units had

meanwhile approached the Guwahati High Court with a series of

writ petitions seeking judicial  intervention. By common judgment

and  order  dated  20-06-2008,  the  petitions  were  allowed  by  the

Single Judge of that Court directing the implementing authorities to

process the applications of the writ petitioners for grant of subsidy

under SPINE in accordance with law for sanctioning the same to

each  of  them  without  being  influenced  by  the  letter  dated

05-02-2007 of the Secretary, Ministry of DONER within a period of

ninety days from the receipt of the copy of the judgment and order.

In  pronouncing  this  verdict,  the  learned  Single  Judge  inter  alia

recorded that  relying on the assurance under  the scheme,  units

Page 10

10

concerned had materially altered their positions by investing huge

amounts for setting up their respective new industrial units even by

obtaining  secured  and  unsecured  loans  and  that  denial  of  the

financial assistance under the scheme would result in their closure

observing  that  the  letter  dated  05-02-2007  did  not  indicate

withdrawal  of  the  scheme  and  that  only  enquiry  into  some

irregularities was comprehended.  The learned Single Judge noted

as well  that meanwhile the concerned industries had made their

units functional.   The minutes of  the meeting dated 21-02-2007

was also taken note of in expressing this view.  The learned Single

Judge entertained the plea of promissory estoppel as well in issuing

the operative directions.   

9.1   This decision was taken in appeals before a Division Bench of

the Guwahati  High Court by the Union of India and NEC which

were  dismissed  on  27-11-2008.   Admittedly,  the  present

respondents were not parties in the earlier round of litigation. This

adjudication  undertaken  by  the  Guwahait  High  Court,  attained

finality by the order dated 01-05-2009 passed by this Court in  SLP

No. 9578-9584/2009, whereby the same was left uninterfered.

Page 11

11

10.   Close  on  the  heels  of  this  affirmation  by  this  Court,  the

respondents herein on 27-08-2009 filed their writ petitions claiming

the  same  relief  seeking  parity  of  treatment.  The  learned  Single

Judge of the Guwahati High Court by judgment and order dated

07-10-2009 dismissed all  the petitions analogously heard on the

ground  of  delay  and  laches.   Observing  with  reference  to  the

relevant decisions of this Court that the benefit of a judicial verdict

in  a  case  cannot  automatically  be  extended  to  another  more

particularly  in  the  face  of  unexplained  and/or  unsatisfactory

explanation of delay in between, the learned Single Judge declined

the relief holding that the exercise of powers under Article 226 of

the  Constitution  of  India  was  primarily  equitable  in  nature.

According to the learned Single Judge, in the attendant facts and

circumstances, the respondents were not only aware of the decision

of the concerned authorities to wind up SPINE by refusing financial

assistance thereunder as intimated by the letter dated 05-02-2007,

it was held as well that the respondents without joining the writ

petitioners in the earlier outing had deliberately chosen to await the

outcome  thereof  and  thus  were  really  fence  sitters  to  avail  the

benefit of a favourable verdict, if forthcoming.  The learned Single

Page 12

12

Judge was of the view that the passive conduct of the respondents

herein tantamounted to sleeping over their rights for over two years

to wake from their feigned slumber after the decision of this Court

on 01-05-2009, to agitate their perceived rights.  That having regard

as were, to the financial implications that would ensue in case the

inordinately  delayed  claim  of  the  respondents  is/was  by

entertained, thus adversely impacting upon public exchequer, the

learned Single Judge declined the relief sought for.

11.    By  the  decision  impugned  in  the  present  proceedings,  a

Division Bench of the same High Court reversed these findings and

granted the relief prayed for by the respondents in the same terms

as  sanctioned  earlier  to  the  otherwise  equally  placed  industrial

units.  The Division Bench adverted inter alia to the letters dated

05-02-2007  and  04-05-2010  issued  by  the  Ministry  of  DONER

apart  from heavily  relying  on the  decision in  the  earlier  lis  and

returned a finding that SPINE had continued till the issuance of the

notification/letter dated 04-05-2010.  Their Lordships held the view

that as the respondents had set up their industrial units during the

validity  of  the  scheme  and  their  claims  were  pending  in  course

Page 13

13

thereof, the appellants, the implementing authorities were obliged

to consider the same.  That the view taken by the learned Single

Judge was inconsistent with the one taken in the judgment and

order dated 20-6-2008 was also noted.  It was held as well  that

apart from the fact that there was no prescribed period of limitation

to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, as under the Limitation Act 1963, it was in any case, three

years,  their  writ  petitions could not have been dismissed on the

ground of delay.  In any view of the matter, it was observed that, the

time lag in filing the writ petitions could not have been reckoned

from  05-02-2007  where  the  SPINE  was  not  closed.  That  the

implementing authorities did not at any point of time communicate

to the respondents the rejection of their claims was also recorded.

The  aspect  of  financial  implications  was  also  dismissed  as

inconsequential.  Relying on the determination made in the earlier

proceedings,  the  appellants  herein  were  directed  to  process  the

application of the respondents for investment subsidy under SPINE

in accordance with the law and without being influenced by the

letter dated 05-02-2007 for sanctioning the same within a period of

ninety days.  In another words,  the operative directions contained

Page 14

14

in the judgment and order dated 20-06-2008 in the earlier batch of

writ petitions was replicated vis-à-vis the respondents.

12.   In the backdrop of this factual matrix, Dr. Atrey the learned

counsel  for  the  appellants  has  insistently  argued  that  it  being

apparent on a combined reading of the letters dated 05-02-2007,

20-3-2007  and  04-05-2010  that  a  conscious  decision  had  been

taken by the concerned authorities to discontinue SPINE with effect

from 23-2-2007,  the  writ  petitions  of  the  respondents,  who  had

admittedly not joined the earlier set of industrial units had been

rightly  rejected  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  on  the  ground  of

unexplained delay , laches and inaction on their part. Referring to

the letter dated 04-05-2010 in particular, he has urged that it being

evident  therefrom that  SPINE had  been  discontinued  with  effect

from  23-02-2007,  an  advance  indication  to  that  effect  being

disclosed  in  the  letter  dated  05-02-2007  preceding  thereto,  and

conveyed  by  the  one  dated  23-2-2007,  it  is  apparent  that  the

respondents herein had not approached the Guwahati High Court

in time, to take a gambling chance later on and to cash upon any

favourable verdict in the earlier litigation.  As the approach of the

Page 15

15

respondents lack in bonafide and as they cannot be construed to

have invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court in time, their

claim had been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge in the

exercise of the equitable prerogative, he urged.  The learned counsel

maintained  that  as  the  claim  of  the  respondents  had  not  been

allowed during the pendency of SPINE, they have no vested right to

insist for a direction to sanction the incentives thereunder and thus

the  impugned  judgment  and  order  in  the  prevailing  facts  and

circumstances ought to be interfered with.  He further argued that

not only on the closure of the scheme in 2007, as conveyed by the

letter  dated 23-2-2007, the pending proposals including those of

the respondents herein had been returned to the respective State

Governments, in absence of any challenge to the said decision, the

respondents even otherwise are not entitled to the benefit under it.

According to the learned counsel, the respondents are not entitled

to the benefit of the earlier adjudication and that if their claim is

entertained it would not only signify unwarranted premium on their

speculative  inaction  but  also  would  severely  impinge  upon  the

financial resources of the State qua an unworthy cause.

Page 16

16

13.   As against this, Ms. N. Saikia has emphatically argued that

the respondents being similarly placed with the writ petitioners in

the  earlier  proceedings,  they  had  been  rightly  extended  equal

treatment  and  thus  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  is

unassailable in law and on facts.  As admittedly by the letter dated

05-02-2007, the scheme had not been withdrawn and in fact no

decision rejecting their claim thereunder had ever been conveyed to

the respondents,  the action of  the appellants in endeavouring to

deny the  benefit  thereunder  is  patently  arbitrary,  whimsical  and

unconstitutional, she urged.  In any view of the matter, according to

the learned counsel, as the implementing authorities were generally

sloth in processing the applications, taking about four/five years’

time to complete the process, the respondents could not have been

non-suited on the purported ground of  delay and laches.   While

asserting that the scheme was in force when the writ petitions were

filed  Ms.  N.  Saikia  insisted  that  the  respondents  having  altered

their position in view of the incentives promissed thereunder, the

action of the appellants in declining them the same is violative of

the  doctrine  of  promissory  estoppel.   According  to  the  learned

counsel, as others similarly placed with the respondents have been

Page 17

17

extended  the  benefits  under  the  scheme,  the  denial  to  the

respondents was discriminatory as well.   The following decisions

were relied upon to buttress the above assertions:

AIR 1979 SCC 621 M/S Motilal Padampt Sugar Mills Co. –Vs- The

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2004) 6 SCC 465 State of Punjab –Vs-

Nestle  India  Ltd.,  (2006)  8  SCC  702  MRF  Limited  Vs  Assistant

Commissioner Sales Tax., (2004) 1 SCC 139 State of Orissa & Ors Vs

Mangalam  Timber  Products  Limited.,  (2009)  6  SCC  791  Basanti

Prasad  Vs  Chairman,  Bihar  School  Examination  Boards  &  Ors.,

(2010) 6 SCC 786 Improvement Trust, Ludhiana VS. Ujagar Singh &

Ors.,  (2013)  12  SCC  649  Esha  Bhattacharjee  Vs.  Raghunathpur

Nafar Academy & Ors.

14.   The pleaded facts and the competing arguments have received

our due attention.  To start with, it  is not disputed that the writ

petitioners  in  the  earlier  round  of  adjudication  were  applicants

under SPINE alike the respondents herein.  They being appalled by

the  delay in  the  grant  of  their  receivables  thereunder  and being

faced with the letter dated 05-02-2007 whereby pending receipt and

scrutiny of the reports as called for, further sanction/disbursement

Page 18

18

of Grants-in-Aid under the said scheme was stopped, did promptly

approach the Guwahati High Court with a batch of writ petitions in

the year 2007 itself and as narrated hereinabove were favoured with

a direction to the implementing authorities for consideration of their

application  for  the  investment  subsidy  in  accordance  with  law

without  being  influenced  by  the  said  letter.   Admittedly,  the

respondents  herein  elected  not  to  join  them  and  instead,  soon

thereafter  this  Court  affirmed  the  above  verdict  on  01-05-2009,

staked their claim on 27-08-2009.  There is evidently thus a time

lag of more than two years by which the respondents’ challenge was

delayed.  

14.1    It  is  a  matter  of  record,  that  by  letter/notification dated

04-05-2010  issued  by  the  Secretary,  Ministry  of  DONER,  NEC,

Shillong, confirmation of the decision of withdrawal and closure of

SPINE with effect from 23-02-2007, was notified.  A plain perusal of

the contents of this document would reveal in no uncertain terms

that the withdrawal and closure of SPINE had been effected by an

Order of Government of India vide NEC/PLAN/ii-23-2-2007.  Thus

the  letter/notification  dated  04-05-2010,  did  relate  back  to

Page 19

19

23-02-2007  for  all  intents  and  purposes.  Therefore  the  scheme,

SPINE stood withdrawn and/or closed on and from 23-02-2007.  As

a  corollary,  on  a  cumulative  reading  of  the  letters  dated

05-02-2007, 23-02-2007 and 04-05-2010 as well as the resolution

dated  21-02-2007  it  is  indubitable  that  SPINE  stood  withdrawn

and/or  closed  with  effect  from  23-02-2007.   As  adverted  to

hereinabove, by letter dated 01-10.2007, as a consequential step,

the proposal which had remained unprocessed as per the standard

procedures of the scheme were returned to the State Governments.

The  list  of  proposals  remitted  back  admittedly  included  those

amongst others of the respondents herein. It is thus patent that on

such date i.e. 01-10-2007, the claims of the respondents had not

been  accepted  and  in  view  of  the  closure  of  the  scheme,  were

returned to the respective State Governments.  In this pronounced

backdrop, the plea of the respondents that at the institution of the

writ petitions in 2009, no decision had been taken rejecting their

applications fades into insignificance, as those by implication had

not been entertained under the scheme.

Page 20

20

14.2    The letters dated 04-08-2006, 04-09-2007 and 12-09-2007

to which our attention has been drawn in course of the arguments,

suffice it to mention, do not contain any assurance on the part of

the  implementing  authorities  promising  grant  of  the  subsidy

allowance  under  the  scheme  or  any  other  incentive  to  the

respondent.  No reference has been made before us of any other

document qua the other respondents.  We are thus constrained to

hold  that  there  was  no  promise  on  the  part  of  the  public

functionaries  in  charge  of  implementation  of  SPINE  to  the

respondents to extend benefits thereunder, inspite of the decision to

withdraw or close the same with effect from 23-02-2007.

15.    In M/s Motilal  Padampt Sugar Mills  Company supra,  this

Court, on an exhaustive survey of the law pertaining to the doctrine

of promissory estoppel held that the same was an equitable doctrine

that would yield when equity so required.  While propounding that

the  same  had  been  evolved  to  avoid  injustice  where  it  is

demonstrated  that  a  party  acting  on  the  words  or  conduct  of

another, amounting to clear and unequivocal promise and intended

to create legal relations or effect legal relationships to arise in the

Page 21

21

future had altered his position, then the promise would be binding

on the promisor  and he would not be permitted to renege therefrom

unless  it  would  be  inequitable  to  compel  him  to  do  so.   While

extending  this  doctrine  to  the  Government  as  well,  it  was

enunciated that if it can be shown that having regard to the facts as

had subsequently transpired, it  would be inequitable to hold the

Government to the promise made by it, the Court would not raise

the equity in favour of the promisee and enforce the promise against

the  Government.  Their  Lordships  held  that  the  doctrine  of  the

promissory estoppel would be displaced in such a case, because on

the facts, equity would not require that the Government should be

held bound by the promise made by it. That aside overriding public

interest against enforcement of the doctrine qua the Government, it

would be still competent for it to depart from the promise on giving

reasonable  notice which need not  be a formal one,  affording the

promisee  a  reasonable  opportunity  of  resuming his  position  was

underlined.   We  consider  it  inessential  to  dilate  on  the  other

decisions cited on behalf of the respondents on this theme as these

are in essence in reiteration of the above proposition.

Page 22

22

16.   The gravamen of the authorities pertaining to delay highlight

in unison that the same has to be explained by cogent convincing

and  persuasive  explanation  to  justify  condonation  thereof.   The

legal diktat being so fundamental that a detailed treatment of the

decisions  relied  upon  by  the  respondents  in  this  regard  is  not

warranted.

17.    Noticeably,  in the  earlier  round of  litigation,  there was no

scope to examine the purport of  the contents of  the letter  dated

04-05-2010,  which  to  reiterate  only  affirmed  the  decision  of

withdrawal and closure of SPINE with effect from 23-02-2007.  The

contents of the said letter to repeat disclose in unequivocal terms

that even prior thereto a decision to that effect had been taken on

and  from  that  date.   This  decision  as  referred  to   hereinabove

amongst  others  also  received  media  coverage.  The  plea  that  the

respondents had no knowledge of the withdrawal/closure of SPINE

then, is to say the least, unconvincing. We see no weighty or cogent

reason  for  the  respondents  to  wait  till  the  earlier  Special  Leave

Petition  was  dismissed  on  01-05-2009  by  this  Court  to  embark

upon their pursuit for redress in similar terms.  Their writ petitions

Page 23

23

dated 27-08-2009 also do not evince that the same were filed after

the letter/notification dated 04-05-2010.  In our considered opinion

therefore,  the respondents were deliberately bidding time to seek

judicial  remedy  in  case  their  co-applicants  under  the  scheme

emerged successful in their adjudicative enterprise.  As the initial

decision conveyed by the letter dated 05-02-2007 to stop further

sanction/disbursement of Grant-in-Aid under the scheme pending

scrutiny of the report of the industrial units involved did eventually

metamorphosise in the closure/withdrawal of the scheme, there is

an  apparent  correlation  between  the  intervening  developments

conveyed from time to time eventuating in such a conclusion. The

merit of the factums  leading to this decision however has not been

questioned or impeached.   

18.   On a consideration of the totality of the aspects involved, we

are thus of the unhesitant view that the respondents herein in view

of their deliberate laches, negligence and inaction have disentitled

themselves to the benefit of the adjudication in the earlier lis.  In

the accompanying facts and circumstances in our comprehension,

it  would  be  iniquitous  and  repugnant  as  well  to  the  public

Page 24

24

exchequer to entertain the belated claim of the respondents on the

basis of the doctrine of promissory estoppel which is even otherwise

inapplicable to the case in hand.

19.  For the foregoing determination, we are constrained to interfere

with the impugned judgment and order which is hereby set aside.

The appeals are allowed.  No cost.

………………………J. ( M.Y.EQBAL)

 ……..…………..….J.     (AMITAVA ROY)

NEW DELHI Dated: May 08, 2015