https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465563 Writ relief under Article 226 was refused because the MOU governing fly ash collection was purely contractual and not "statutory" in character: the environmental notification required utilisation of fly ash but did not mandate allotment to any private party or any fixed percentage, and the competing claims on "poor take-off" versus diversion raised disputed questions of fact unsuitable for writ adjudication; the HC therefore declined interference and dismissed the petitions. Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were rejected since no enforceable assurance of fixed quantities was shown, the MOU contemplated review/penalty for short lifting, and overriding public interest in preventing environmental hazard justified reduction; consequently, the reductions were upheld. Natural justice, non-speaking order, and mala fides challenges failed because prior communications evidenced notice, the counter affidavit merely furnished particulars of the stated reason, and third-party allotment was not shown to vitiate the decision; the contractual percentage and period reductions were sustained. en-us Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 11:17:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465563 Writ relief under Article 226 was refused because the MOU governing fly ash collection was purely contractual and not "statutory" in character: the environmental notification required utilisation of fly ash but did not mandate allotment to any private party or any fixed percentage, and the competing claims on "poor take-off" versus diversion raised disputed questions of fact unsuitable for writ adjudication; the HC therefore declined interference and dismissed the petitions. Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were rejected since no enforceable assurance of fixed quantities was shown, the MOU contemplated review/penalty for short lifting, and overriding public interest in preventing environmental hazard justified reduction; consequently, the reductions were upheld. Natural justice, non-speaking order, and mala fides challenges failed because prior communications evidenced notice, the counter affidavit merely furnished particulars of the stated reason, and third-party allotment was not shown to vitiate the decision; the contractual percentage and period reductions were sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465563