Non-statutory incentive scheme terms bar enforceable benefit claims and defeat promissory estoppel against express negative clauses.

A non-statutory industrial incentive scheme does not create an enforceable right to an eligibility certificate where the scheme expressly states that no right to incentive arises merely on fulfilment of conditions and leaves eligibility determination to the implementing authority. Promissory estoppel cannot override that negative wording. Refusal of benefits under such a scheme does not, by itself, infringe Article 19(1)(g), and an Article 14 challenge fails without a legally cognisable showing of discriminatory treatment. On that reasoning, no mandamus or declaratory relief can be granted on the claimed entitlement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner had an accrued right to an eligibility certificate and incentives under the 1979 package scheme on the basis of promissory estoppel. (ii) Whether the impugned governmental action violated Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner had an accrued right to an eligibility certificate and incentives under the 1979 package scheme on the basis of promissory estoppel.

Analysis: The scheme was an executive, non-statutory package of incentives. Its clauses had to be read as a whole. Clause 4.6 expressly stated that no right or claim for incentive would be deemed to arise merely because the unit had fulfilled the scheme conditions. The scheme also vested the implementing agency with authority to determine completion of effective steps and the date of eligibility, subject to Government directions. On that construction, completion of the petitioner's steps did not by itself crystalise any enforceable right to compel issuance of the certificate. Promissory estoppel could not override the scheme's express negative language.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no accrued enforceable right under the scheme, and the claim based on promissory estoppel failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned governmental action violated Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Refusal of an incentive under a non-statutory industrial scheme did not curtail the petitioner's right to carry on trade or business within Article 19(1)(g). Likewise, Article 14 was not attracted on the material placed, because the petitioner did not establish a legally cognisable discriminatory treatment under a statutory regime, and the mere fact that some other units may have received certificates did not by itself prove unconstitutional discrimination. The challenge was unsupported by sufficient factual foundation.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the asserted entitlement, and no mandamus or declaratory relief could be granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-statutory incentive scheme does not create an enforceable right to benefits where the scheme itself negates such accrual and reserves eligibility determination to the implementing authority; promissory estoppel cannot be used to defeat the scheme's express terms.

---