Equitable estoppel against public authorities bars summary dismissal of a writ petition raising a prima facie claim.

A writ petition alleging arbitrary action by a public body should not be dismissed in limine where it raises a prima facie claim requiring merits-based consideration. The Court held that the existence of some factual controversy does not justify refusal of writ relief when the petition is not frivolous or vexatious. It further affirmed that a public authority may be bound in equity by its representation or undertaking if the other party altered its position in reliance on it, even where formal contractual enforcement may be unavailable. The High Court's summary dismissal was therefore unsustainable, and the writ was remitted for fresh disposal on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine and whether a municipal authority could be held bound by a representation or undertaking on which the company had altered its position.

Analysis: The petition did not raise any complicated question of fact and was not shown to be frivolous, vexatious or unjust. A party alleging unlawful or arbitrary action by a public body is entitled to a hearing on the merits, and the extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be refused merely because some factual controversy exists. On the merits, a public body is not exempt from the equitable obligation arising from representations and assurances made by it when another person has altered position to its prejudice. The Court applied the principle that the Government and other public bodies may be bound in equity to carry out such representations, even where formal contract requirements may otherwise prevent enforcement at law.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the writ petition in limine was unsustainable, and the matter had to be heard on merits; the appellant was entitled to have its grievance adjudicated by the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was set aside and the writ petition was remitted for fresh disposal according to law, while the connected appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A public authority may be held in equity to its representation or undertaking when a citizen has altered position in reliance upon it, and a writ petition raising such a prima facie claim should not be rejected in limine without merits-based consideration.

---