Deleted fiscal subsidy benefits cannot be revived by promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, or later committee interpretation.

A fiscal incentive under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2003 could not be claimed after clauses 7(vi) and 7(vii) were deleted, because no express State assurance, crystallised entitlement, vested right, or enforceable legitimate expectation existed when the entitlement certificates were issued. The text also notes that contemporanea expositio could not revive a deleted subsidy benefit or override the plain effect of the amendment. Where the scheme reserved power to revise erroneous committee decisions and to modify the scheme in public interest, the revisional authority acted within its remit in setting aside certificates granted under the deleted provision, leaving no basis for writ interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could sustain the grant of 75% subsidy under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2003 after deletion of clauses 7(vi) and 7(vii); (ii) whether legitimate expectation or vested right survived the deletion of the enhanced subsidy provision; (iii) whether contemporanea expositio applied so as to uphold the screening committee's interpretation; and (iv) whether the revisional order could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could sustain the grant of 75% subsidy under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2003 after deletion of clauses 7(vi) and 7(vii)

Analysis: The enhanced subsidy provision introduced on 2.12.2005 was deleted on 28.4.2006. The applications and entitlement certificates relied upon by the unit were considered and issued after the deletion. No express assurance by the State promising 75% subsidy was established. In the absence of a subsisting provision and in view of the State's power to modify the scheme in public interest, the doctrine could not be used to enforce the deleted benefit.

Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel failed and was not available to the unit.

Issue (ii): Whether legitimate expectation or vested right survived the deletion of the enhanced subsidy provision

Analysis: Legitimate expectation is not an enforceable right by itself, and a vested right arises only when the legal entitlement has crystallised under an existing provision. Here, no entitlement to 75% subsidy crystallised before the deletion of clauses 7(vi) and 7(vii). The entitlement certificates were issued after the provision had ceased to exist, and the earlier grant could not override the subsequent lawful deletion made in public interest.

Conclusion: No legitimate expectation or vested right survived the deletion, and the unit was not entitled to the enhanced subsidy.

Issue (iii): Whether contemporanea expositio applied so as to uphold the screening committee's interpretation

Analysis: The doctrine of contemporanea expositio could not validate an interpretation that granted a deleted benefit. The screening committee acted after the amended provision had already been removed, and its later view could not override the plain effect of the deletion or create a benefit not then in force.

Conclusion: The doctrine did not apply to support the grant of 75% subsidy.

Issue (iv): Whether the revisional order could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction

Analysis: Clause 13 of the scheme expressly empowered the State Government to revise an order of the screening committee if it was erroneous and prejudicial to State revenue, and clause 14 reserved the power to review or modify the scheme in public interest. The revisional authority acted within that power when it set aside entitlement certificates granted under a deleted provision. No ground existed for interference in certiorari jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The revisional order was valid and not liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The enhanced subsidy under the deleted amendment could not be enforced against the State, and the revisional order restoring the original dispensation under the scheme was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A benefit under a fiscal incentive scheme cannot be claimed after the enabling provision has been validly deleted in public interest, and no vested right, legitimate expectation, or promissory estoppel can sustain a grant made contrary to the scheme as it stood on the date of decision.

---