Promissory estoppel in industrial tariff incentives depends on scheme compliance and the equities of the delay.

Promissory estoppel can operate against the State in relation to a beneficial industrial tariff incentive scheme where an entrepreneur has altered position in reliance on the scheme, but its application remains confined by the scheme's factual limits and surrounding equities. The concessional tariff was intended for new industrial units commencing production within the stipulated period, and relief could be granted where delay was caused by the authorities rather than the unit. On the facts found, the units had materially contributed to the delay or had not acted with reasonable diligence, so the claim to concessional tariff was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked against the State and the Electricity Board in relation to the concessional tariff scheme. (ii) Whether, on the facts found, the appellants were entitled to the concessional tariff despite the delay in obtaining power supply and commencing commercial production.

Issue (i): Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked against the State and the Electricity Board in relation to the concessional tariff scheme.

Analysis: The policy decision granting concessional power tariff was held to be within the powers of the State and could validly be adopted by the Electricity Board under the statutory framework governing electricity supply. A beneficent scheme of this nature may attract promissory estoppel where an entrepreneur alters position in reliance on the State's representation. At the same time, the doctrine remains subject to the facts of each case and to the requirement that it cannot be applied to override the legal or factual limits of the scheme.

Conclusion: The doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable in principle, but only subject to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts found, the appellants were entitled to the concessional tariff despite the delay in obtaining power supply and commencing commercial production.

Analysis: The notification was intended to grant concessional tariff to new industrial units commencing production within the stipulated period. Relief could be extended on equitable grounds where the unit had done all that was reasonably required but was prevented by the authorities from obtaining supply in time. However, where the industrial unit itself contributed materially to the delay, failed to complete the formalities within a reasonable time, or approached the Court after undue delay, the concession could be denied. The findings recorded in one matter showed substantial delay and neglect on the part of the unit, and in the other matter the writ petition itself had been withdrawn, leaving no basis for interference.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the concessional tariff on the facts found.

Final Conclusion: The legal principle of promissory estoppel was recognised, but the appellants failed on the factual matrix and were not granted the claimed tariff relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel may operate against the State in respect of a beneficial industrial incentive scheme, but entitlement to relief depends on strict compliance with the scheme's factual conditions and the surrounding equities of each case.

---