1983 (4) TMI 294 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses petition for eligibility certificate under scheme; doctrine of promissory estoppel inapplicable; no constitutional violation.

The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner had no legal right to claim the eligibility certificate under the scheme. The doctrine of ... - Issues Involved:1. Eligibility Certificate under the Package Scheme of Incentives 19792. Application of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel3. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution4. Violation of Article 14 of the ConstitutionDetailed Analysis:1. Eligibility Certificate under the Package Scheme of Incentives 1979The petitioner, a partnership firm, sought an eligibility certificate under the Package Scheme of Incentives 1979, introduced by the State of Maharashtra. The scheme aimed to provide incentives to industries in backward areas. The petitioner claimed to have completed all necessary steps, including obtaining possession of land, sales tax registration, and commencing production, but was denied the eligibility certificate. The petitioner's application was delayed due to additional scrutiny and new conditions imposed by the government, including the need for a 'no objection certificate' from the Maharashtra State Oil Seeds Commercial and Industrial Corporation Ltd. (respondent No. 3). The court noted that the scheme did not create any right to incentives merely by fulfilling the conditions; the implementing agency's decision was final and binding.2. Application of the Doctrine of Promissory EstoppelThe petitioner argued that the government was estopped from denying the eligibility certificate based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The petitioner relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies and Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which established that the government is bound by its promises if the promisee has acted upon them to their detriment. However, the court held that the scheme's Clause 4.6 explicitly stated that no right or claim for incentives was conferred merely by fulfilling the conditions. Therefore, the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply in this case as no legal right had accrued to the petitioner.3. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the ConstitutionThe petitioner argued that the denial of the eligibility certificate violated their right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court rejected this argument, stating that Article 19(1)(g) does not create a right to obtain concessions or benefits under a scheme. The scheme was not framed under any law that restricted the petitioner's right to trade or business, and thus, there was no violation of Article 19(1)(g).4. Violation of Article 14 of the ConstitutionThe petitioner also claimed that the government's actions were discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The court noted that the scheme was non-statutory and not based on any law. Therefore, the government's actions could not be challenged under Article 14. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate arbitrary discrimination. The court concluded that the factual basis for a claim under Article 14 was not adequately established, and thus, the challenge under Article 14 was not sustainable.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had not established any legal right to claim the eligibility certificate under the scheme. The doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply as the scheme explicitly stated that no right or claim for incentives was conferred merely by fulfilling the conditions. Additionally, there was no violation of Articles 19(1)(g) or 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner's prayers for quashing the letter dated 25th October 1982 and issuing a writ of mandamus were denied. The rule was discharged without any order as to costs.