Promissory estoppel requires clear promise and proven reliance; exemption from electricity surcharge could not be continued.

Promissory estoppel against an electricity corporation failed because the consumer did not specifically plead or prove a clear, unequivocal promise and consequential reliance. The tariff framework already contemplated surcharge on supply drawn from an independent feeder, and the exemption circular was later withdrawn. In the absence of foundational pleadings and supporting material showing that the consumer altered its position on the basis of the alleged assurance, the exemption could not be continued or restored on promissory estoppel grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent-consumer had established a binding promise by the electricity corporation so as to attract promissory estoppel and justify continuance of the exemption from surcharge.

Analysis: The consumer sought to rely on an alleged assurance that no 15% surcharge would be levied on supply drawn from an independent feeder. The record showed, however, that the tariff notified by the Regulatory Commission contemplated surcharge on such consumers and that the exemption circular was later withdrawn. The pleadings contained no specific averment that the corporation had made an unequivocal promise to the respondent, and there was no material showing that the respondent altered its position in reliance on any such promise. A plea of promissory estoppel cannot succeed in the absence of foundational pleadings and supporting material establishing the promise and reliance.

Conclusion: The respondent did not establish promissory estoppel, and the withdrawal of the exemption could not be interfered with on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel can be invoked only when a clear promise and reliance thereon are specifically pleaded and proved by material on record.

---