Public interest can justify revising a settlement policy, but accrued benefits and promissory estoppel prevent retrospective withdrawal.

A governmental economic policy such as a One Time Settlement may be revised in larger public interest, including to exclude profit-making companies, and the State was entitled to do so. That revision, however, could not operate retrospectively to defeat transactions already acted upon in the absence of express or necessary statutory authority. Where the concession had been accepted, payments made, and the parties had altered their position, promissory estoppel bound the State and the Corporation in respect of those settled cases. The result was prospective policy change only, with accrued OTS benefits preserved for completed performance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State could alter the One Time Settlement policy on grounds of public interest and exclude profit-making companies; (ii) whether such amendment could operate retrospectively in the absence of statutory authority; (iii) whether the State and the Corporation were bound by promissory estoppel after the petitioner had acted upon the OTS and made payments.

Issue (i): Whether the State could alter the One Time Settlement policy on grounds of public interest and exclude profit-making companies.

Analysis: The original OTS was a policy concession. The State received adverse financial scrutiny, found that the concession was benefiting defaulting profit-making companies, and was entitled to revise the policy in larger public interest. A Government may modify or withdraw an economic policy when the earlier arrangement is found to be contrary to public interest or financial prudence.

Conclusion: Yes. The State could validly alter the OTS policy and restrict its benefit to non-profit-making companies.

Issue (ii): Whether such amendment could operate retrospectively in the absence of statutory authority.

Analysis: An amendment altering rights and liabilities is ordinarily prospective unless retrospective operation is expressly or by necessary implication authorised. The petitioner had already acted upon the earlier OTS and made payments. In the absence of statutory power to give retroactive effect, the later notification could not take away accrued benefits with effect from an earlier date.

Conclusion: No. The amendment could not be applied retrospectively to defeat transactions already acted upon.

Issue (iii): Whether the State and the Corporation were bound by promissory estoppel after the petitioner had acted upon the OTS and made payments.

Analysis: The petitioner accepted the OTS, altered his position, and made substantial payments. Once the State and the Corporation held out the concession and received performance under it, they could not resile from the concluded arrangement to the prejudice of the petitioner. The equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel applied because no statutory prohibition barred its operation on these facts.

Conclusion: Yes. The State and the Corporation were bound by promissory estoppel in respect of OTS obligations already acted upon.

Final Conclusion: The policy could be revised in public interest, but only prospectively; the petitioners who had already performed under the OTS were entitled to its benefit, and the Corporation had to give effect to the settlement in those cases where payment had been made.

Ratio Decidendi: A governmental economic policy may be modified or withdrawn in public interest, but such change is ordinarily prospective and cannot defeat accrued contractual benefits where the promise has been acted upon, unless the law expressly authorises retrospective operation.

---