AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (9) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a factory and commenced production of cement in the year 1917. The predecessor-in-title transferred its right, title and interest to the appellant in the year 1937. The lease was renewed for a period of 30 years on August 1, 1943. On March 17. 1969, the Controller of Mines and Leases modified the terms of the lease, whereby the lease-area was reduced from 101 sq. Miles to 20.5 Sq. Miles and thereafter the lease was renewed for a further period of 20 years from August 1, 1973 to July 31. 1993. 3. After the establishment of the factory the Company developed the factory area by providing other civic amenities, which would normally have been provided by local authorities or municipalities. 4. After the formation of the State of Rajasthan the Government issued a Notification, dated December 5, 1951, fixing the limits of the Lakheri Municipal Board. The limits so fixed included area of the mining lease as well as the factory owned by the appellant. The appellant made certain representations and the State Government agreed to exclude the factory area as well as the area included by mines from Lakheri Municipal limits. A bilateral agreement (Ex. 5) was executed on January 24, 1957, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... February 13, 1979, whereby it claimed declaration that the respondent No. 1 had no right to extend the limits of Lakheri Municipality or include the area occupied by the appellant within any other Municipality or Panchayat or like body. It also claimed that the declaration, dated December 17. 1975, made under Section 4 (1) of the Act be held as void. It has also been prayed that respondent No. 2 be restrained from demanding and collecting, from the appellant Company, any taxes, cesses, fees and other impost by reason of the extension of the municipal limits of defendant No. 2 and inclusion of the area occupied by the appellant Company. It further claimed a refund of an amount of Rs. 19,92,966/-. 6. Along with the plaint an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, was filed claiming the following reliefs:-- (i) that the defendant-respondents be restrained from acting upon the said Notification, dated December 17, 1975, in so far as it extends the limits of respondent No. 2 over the area occupied by the plaintiff-appellant Company; (ii) pending the disposal of the suit, the defendant-respondents be restrained by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n under Section 104 (2) of the Act, had been published, wherein different rates of octroi recoverable on different items by Lakheri Municipal Board had been mentioned in detail. It had been issued in the name of the Governor of Rajasthan and had been authenticated by the concerned Deputy Secretary. It is an admitted case of the plaintiff that the area covered by the factory and the mining lease had been included within the Municipal limits of Lakheri Municipal Board after taking due steps and publishing requisite Notification (Ex. 9) in the Rajasthan Gazette, dated December 25. 1975. 13. Faced with this inconvenient situation, learned counsel for the appellant laid great stress on the point that no Notification imposing octroi duty on the newly included area had been published after December 25, 1975 and as such the respondent No. 2 is not entitled to recover this amount. In support of the above contention he has placed reliance on The Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana AIR 1972 SC 121. The ratio decidendi of the case noted above has no applicability to the facts of the present case. Section 4 of the Act was amended and Sub-section (8) was inserted by Section 2 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... remain static in any given community. It may vary from generation to generation and even in the same generation. Public policy would be almost useless if it were to remain in fixed moulds for all time. The difficulty of discovering what public policy is at any given moment certainly does not absolve the Judges from the duty of doing so. In conducting an enquiry, as already stated. Judges are not hide-bound by precedent. The Judges must look beyond the narrow field of past precedents, though this still leaves open the question, in which direction they must cast their gaze. The Judges are to base their decision on the opinions of men of the world, as distinguished from opinion based on legal learning. In other words, the Judges will have to look beyond the jurisprudence and that in so doing, they must consult not their own personal standards or predilections but those of the dominant opinion at a given moment, or what has been termed customary morality. 18. It can safely be said that the State Government does not possess power of depriving the residents of a particular locality of their right to be governed by a local body, such as, municipality or gram panchayat and participate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the appellant under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, reveals that the plea of promissory estoppel was not raised in the application. The plea of promissory estoppel is a mixed question of fact and law. For obtaining relief under such a plea, foundation is required to be laid down in the pleadings. Nowhere in the application it has been mentioned as to what particular acts were performed by the appellant Company after the execution of Ex. 5 or after the renewal of the lease in the year 1973. In order to raise the plea of promissory estoppel it was for the petitioner-appellant to have specifically mentioned that placing reliance on the terms of the agreement Ex. 5 it acted upon it and made certain constructions for the benefit of the residents of the newly included area. The learned District Judge was correct in observing as under:-- (Matter in Hindi omitted --Ed.) 22. In the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show, relying on the representation of the Government after 1973 that the Company had altered its position by investing monies and thus no factual foundation for establishing plea of promissory estoppel has been laid down a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omissory estoppel cannot be invoked for preventing the Government from acting in discharge of its duty under the law. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be applied in teeth of an obligation or liability imposed by law. It may also be noted here that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to compel the Government or even a private party to do an act prohibited by law. There can also be no promissory estoppel against the exercise of legislative powers. The legislature can never be precluded from exercising its legislative functions by resort to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. It is one of the obligatory duties of the State Government to provide an opportunity to its citizens to be governed by the local self-government. As such, it cannot be said that the State Government was or is precluded from extending the limits of Lakheri Municipality. 25. The net result of the above discussion is that the plaintiff-appellant has in entirety failed to prove that a prima facie case exists in its favour. 26. Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act provides that except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the specific performance of any contract may, in the discretion of the Court....