B. L. Yadav, J. - (1.) WHETHER the doctrine of promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel or quasi estoppel was applicable to the facts of the case and as consequence thereof the petitioners were entitled to the payment of Central Investment Subsidy, is the short question for our determination in the present petition filed by the Petitioners under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1, Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Industry Department, to make payment of central investment subsidy for a sum of Rs. 3,02,075/-to the Petitioners' unit Tarun Mundralaya, Dharnidharpur (Ahiyapur) Jaunpur, as consequence of the earlier deliberate promise made to petitioners upon which the petitioners changed their position and invested a hand some amount for the scheme announced by the respondents.
(2.) PORTRAYAL of the essential facts are that the Government of India, Ministry of Industries, Department of Industrial Development, New Delhi, respondent no. 1 decided to give central investment subsidy to industrial units situated in the districts which were defined as backward districts, i. e. Jaunpur, categorised in Category 'A' where the central investment subsidy is admissible to 25% of the fixed assets subject to a ceiling of Rs. 25 lakhs. The aforesaid deliberate offer or promote was made by respondent no. I by letter dated 17-1-84 (Annexure-1 to the petition) on the subject-Re-alignment of industrially backward areas and graded central investment subsidy- introduction of. It was stated in that letter sent to all the Industries Secretaries Industry Departments of all the State Governments including the State Government of Uttar Pradesh that categorisation of industrially backward areas in Category 'A' Category 'B' and Category 'C' was made and subsidy was made available to the Industrial units set up in the backward areas. Here Jaunpur was in Category 'A' of the backward areas where subsidy was made admissible for each industrial units 25% of the fixed assets subject to a ceiling of Rs. 25 lakhs. It was further made clear that investment was to be made when the industrial units must go in production after 1-4-93 whereas Investment prior to that would qualify for the subsidy at the old rates. The claim for subsidy was to be accompanied by a certificate that the level of investment has not exceeded the maximum investment of Rs. 30 crores. A subsequent letter dated 22-7-83 (Annexure-2 to the petition) was issued by the Commissioner and Directed of industries, U. P. that the District level committee has been authorised to grant subsidy to the tune of Rs. 2.25 lacs and the recommendation of the District level committee was to be sent to the head office for the purpose and 11 persons were to be members and one person was to be adhyaksha as was indicated in the letter dated 2-4-83 (vide page 33 of the paper book). Vide letter dated 30-3-88 the period of investment and subsidy was extended till 31-3-88 (Annexure-3 to the petition) Later on this period was extended till 30-9-88 (vide annexure-4 to the petition In view of the aforesaid letters the petitioner no 2 established a press, namely Tarun Mundralaya, Dharnidharpur (Ahiyapur). Jaunpur. An application dated 30-1-81 was sent accompanied by an affidavit for the grant of central investment subsidy to respondent no. 4, the General Manager, Zila Udyog Kendra, Jaunpur. The respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 15-9-88 (Annexure-5 the petition), asked for some more documents. The petitioner had already made investment including purchase of printing machine In July- August, 1988 and the project was ready. In reply to letter dated 15-9-88 of respondent no. 4, the petitioner sent a letter dated 25th September, 1988 (Annexure-6 to the petition), along with all the relevant documents as required in the letter dated 15-9-88 for obtaining subsidy. In fact, the fixed asset of the petitioners was to the extent of Rs. 12,08,310/- against which 25% central investment subsidy to the tune of Rs. 3,02,075/- was claimed and all the relevant papers including statement of project, statement of accounts from 1984-85 to 1987-88, A.S.I. Registration Certificate, all bills, and vouchers, list of machines, certificate of Chartered Accountant, statement of electricity, certificate of sales, tax, certificate relating to ownership of land and assessment from Nagar Palika certificate from Civil Engineer and certificate relating to renewal of building were sent (vide para 12 of the petition). The petitioner no. 1 was printing and publishing industry. The petitioner's application was registered on 30-9-88 with respondent no. 4 for the grant of 25% subsidy, The unit of petitioner was registered on 30-1-88 at serial no: 24. Respondent no 4 has registered the petitioner's unit for grant of central investment subsidy on 30-9-88 within time as respondent no. 1 has already extended time for granting subsidy upto 30-9-88 vide letter dated 16-5-88 (Annexure-4 to the petition). In any event the unit must have been registered upto 30-9-318. It was obvious from the letter dated 16-5-88 (Annexure-4). The registration certificate of capital subsidy was also filed vide Annexure-7 to the petition. Respondent no. 4 forwarded the petitioner's application for grant of central investment subsidy and the relevant documents were sent to the Commissioner and Director of Industries, U. P. Kanpur for necessary action. The matter was to be put up before the Committee at State level (Annexure-8). The Deputy Director of Industries and the office of the Commissioner and Director of Industries, U. P., Kanpur wrote a letter dated 16-1-89 to respondent no. 4 that the respondent no. 1 has stopped payment of central investment subsidy for the industries relating to printing press. A copy of the earlier letter dated 22-9-88 received from respondent no. 1 has been filed as Annexurc-10 to the petition. Letter dated 21-7-89 of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Industries, Department of Industrial Developments, New Delhi was sent to all the Secretaries of the Industry Deptt. of all the States that subsidy would be given to all the manufacturing units and activities, which were approved upto 30-9-88 by the District Level Committee or State Level Committee (Annexure-11 to the petition) Ultimately the Director of Industries, U. P., Kanpur returned the application of the petitioners with all the documents attached to it as the Government of India decided not to pay subsidy to printing press. As petitioner no. 1 has made an investment of Rs 12 lakhs, but on account of the letter dated 21-7-89 the subsidy to the tune of Rs. 3,02,075/- was not being made to the petitioner, even though on the deliberate promise of the respondents the petitioner's changed their position and made heavy investment of more than Rs 12 lakhs. Under these circumstances the question arose as to whether the petitioners were entitled to central investment subsidy or not. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed claiming the aforesaid relief. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Bharatji Agarwal and Sri C. L. Pandey urged that principles of promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel or quasi estoppel was applicable and the respondents were estopped from denying petitioners the central investment subsidy of which the promise was already made and the petitioners changed their position to their disadvantage by making huge investment of sum of Rs. 12 lakhs. Hence the State of U. P. or the Union of India was bound by the deliberate promise made and the petitioners were entitled to the relief claimed.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel, however, on the other hand refuted the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and urged that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was not applicable and that the petitioners were not entitled to the central investment subsidy. The short question that falls for out determination is as to whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel or quasi estoppel was applicable. As the deliberate promise was made by respondent no. 1 by letter dated 17-1-84 (Annexure-1) announcing that the districts which were categorised as industrially backward districts and the district Jaunpur being in Category 'A', if any industrial unit was set up in the Industrially backward area of Category 'A, and where the investment do not exceed Rs. 30 crows, in that event the subsidy admissible for such unit was 25% subject to a ceiling of Rs. 25 lakhs. The nature! of industry, however, was not indicated. On this promise/offer which was intended to affect the legal relations, and on the assurance of that promise or offer, the petitioners did change their position to their detriment by making heavy investment as indicated above. In that event it would be inequitable on the part of respondents to assert that they are not bound by the promise made. In such situation the doctrine that emerges is promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel or quasi estoppel. Even the Government department including the respondents were bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel of quasi estoppel. (See Robertson v. Ministry of Pensions, (1948) 2 All ER 767; Howell v. False- mouth Boat Construction Co. Ltd. (1951) AC 837.;