GUPTESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reliefs Prayed and Submissions of the Petitioner

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement as contained in Annexure '1' published in the Newspaper on 16.09.2007, the petitioner had participated for selection as a Public-Private Partner ('PPP') to construct and run the Fish Seed hatchery on the fish seed farm under control of the Directorate of Fisheries, Government of Bihar. The Advertisement contained a provision for extension of settlement for another ten years on successful running of hatchery. While the selection of the petitioner was still under process, the Government of Bihar came out with a policy decision in the matter of running of a 'fish seed hatchery' in the fish seed farms. There was a clear promise in the notification dated 28th April, 2010 in tune with the advertisement (Annexure '1') that on performance extension for another term of ten years shall be considered. In fact this term has been duly incorporated in the agreement dated 17.05.2010 registered on 22.05.2010 (Annexure '3'). According to the terms of Advertisement, notification and the agreement, on successful running of the Hatchery for 10 years, petitioner has to be considered for extension of another 10 years, therefore, it is submitted that at this stage the respondents cannot turn around to say that the competent authority has decided not to grant any extension.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted before this Court that the terms of Advertisement, policy decision of the Government as contained in the notification dated 28th April, 2010 and the agreement (Annexure '3') would be binding upon the Government and the respondents cannot resile from the promises made to the petitioner as a partner under the deed dated 17.05.2010 (Annexure '3') to consider him for extension of another 10 years if he successfully runs the Hatchery for the initial period of 10 years. It is his submission that the principle of 'promissory estoppel' would come into play in the fact and circumstances of the present case. In order to buttress his point on the issue of 'promissory estoppel', learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has made investments and employed manpower and thereby changed his possession, if at this stage the Government resiles from its promise to consider the case of the petitioner, it will be detrimental to the petitioner.