Promissory estoppel protected an incentive subsidy once entitlement crystallised, and revisional power could not undo it later.

An amended incentive scheme for cement units created a protected entitlement to enhanced subsidy once the beneficiary had exercised the option, completed the prescribed investment, commenced production and received entitlement certificates while the scheme remained in force. The later deletion of the enabling clauses and subsequent clarification could not retrospectively withdraw that vested benefit; promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation applied because the State had induced investment through a specific assurance. Revisional interference was also invalid because the Screening Committee's grant was not shown to be erroneous or prejudicial to State revenue, so the revisional power could not be used merely to reverse a valid benefit after a policy change.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could claim the enhanced subsidy promised under the amended incentive scheme notwithstanding the later deletion of the enabling clauses and the subsequent clarification. (ii) Whether the revisional order setting aside the Screening Committee's decisions was sustainable under the revisional power conferred by the scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could claim the enhanced subsidy promised under the amended incentive scheme notwithstanding the later deletion of the enabling clauses and the subsequent clarification.

Analysis: The amended scheme granted a higher subsidy package for eligible cement units that made the prescribed investment and fulfilled the employment and option requirements. The petitioner had exercised the option, completed the relevant investment steps, commenced production, and obtained entitlement certificates while the amended clause was operating. The later deletion of the enabling clauses and the clarification issued thereafter could not be applied so as to take away the benefit already crystallised in the petitioner's favour. The State had held out a specific incentive to induce investment, and the petitioner had acted upon that assurance. In these circumstances, the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation applied, and the petitioner acquired a protected entitlement to the enhanced subsidy for the stipulated period.

Conclusion: The enhanced subsidy could not be withdrawn from the petitioner, and the petitioner remained entitled to the benefit under the amended notification.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional order setting aside the Screening Committee's decisions was sustainable under the revisional power conferred by the scheme.

Analysis: Revisional power under the scheme could be exercised only where the Screening Committee's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the State revenue. The Screening Committee had adopted a plausible and legally sustainable view on the petitioner's entitlement, and the grant of benefit was not shown to be erroneous or revenue-prejudicial merely because the State later changed the policy. The revisional order was thus based on an impermissible attempt to undo a benefit already validly granted and could not be sustained on the stated statutory criteria.

Conclusion: The revisional order was unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the revisional order was set aside, and the petitioner was held entitled to continue receiving the enhanced subsidy for the full seven-year period under the entitlement certificates already issued.

Ratio Decidendi: An incentive promised by the State and acted upon by the beneficiary creates a protected entitlement that cannot be withdrawn retrospectively in the absence of overriding public interest, and revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to disturb a non-erroneous, non-prejudicial grant merely because the policy was later altered.

---