- (1.) Fiscal holidays by the government in the shape of subsidies to facilitate and attract industries within the State of U.P., once extended and acted upon, cannot be withdrawn so as to violate principles of promissory estoppel, is the crux of the subject matter of these petitions. Facts being almost similar, and the legal propositions almost identical, we have referred to the common grounds hereinafter for a convenient appraisal without mentioning exact details of each petition.
(2.) The State made a generous commercial offer to attract industry for ensuring economic growth. The promises extended to investors were not fiction but truth. It may have been out of a hope to open opportunities underlined by liberalization and to create a secure atmosphere for investors so that they are assured of stability in business. "A creative economy is the fuel of magnificence" are the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson that may have inspired the state to announce a subsidized scheme for establishing industries to fulfil local needs and advance trade ensuring returns to the public and to the State via revenue. To originate an industry-friendly environment appears to be the object behind the promises made.
(3.) The petitioners responded to the offer of the State in an equally encouraging manner, and took the risk in good faith by setting up their industries. It is not the case of the State that the petitioners defaulted to an extent so as to frustrate the offers made. It is for this reason that the petitioners contend that, for the State, to backtrack for no valid reason amounts to pulling the carpet from under their shoes.;