Notified statutory scheme prevails over inconsistent brochure; promissory estoppel cannot override statute or compel discretionary relaxation.

A pre-notification brochure could not override a scheme framed and notified under statutory powers, because the published scheme was the authentic operative document. An inconsistent brochure representation could not found promissory estoppel, and compliance with the notified scheme did not amount to deficiency in service merely because the brochure suggested a different maturity period. The consumer fora also could not compel the Trust to exercise its discretionary power to relax, vary or modify the scheme, as that discretion remained with the authority designated by the scheme. The notified statutory scheme therefore governed the parties' rights, and the complaint failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier brochure could override the scheme framed and notified under the statute so as to attract promissory estoppel and deficiency in service; (ii) Whether the consumer fora could compel exercise of the Trust's discretionary power to relax or modify the scheme in favour of the complainants.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier brochure could override the scheme framed and notified under the statute so as to attract promissory estoppel and deficiency in service.

Analysis: The scheme was framed in exercise of statutory powers and was duly published in the Gazette. The brochure issued earlier was only a proposed and imperfect version and, once the scheme was finally approved and notified, the published scheme became the authentic operative document. A representation in a brochure that is inconsistent with the statutory scheme cannot displace the scheme itself. A promise contrary to statute cannot found promissory estoppel, and action taken in accordance with the notified scheme does not amount to deficiency in service merely because an earlier brochure suggested a different maturity period.

Conclusion: The earlier brochure did not bind the Trust against the notified statutory scheme, and promissory estoppel was not attracted.

Issue (ii): Whether the consumer fora could compel exercise of the Trust's discretionary power to relax or modify the scheme in favour of the complainants.

Analysis: The relevant clause vested a discretion in the Chairman or Executive Trustee to relax, vary or modify the scheme where hardship was shown. That discretion remained with the authority designated by the scheme. Consumer fora could not direct that such discretion be exercised in any particular manner, because no adjudicatory body can substitute its own view for a statutorily conferred discretion.

Conclusion: The consumer fora could not compel the exercise of discretionary power under the scheme in favour of the complainants.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition succeeded, the orders of the fora below were set aside, and the consumer complaint failed because the notified statutory scheme governed the parties' rights.

Ratio Decidendi: A representation in an inconsistent pre-notification brochure cannot override a duly notified statutory scheme, and promissory estoppel does not operate against statute or to compel exercise of a discretion conferred by the scheme.

---