KHELARI CEMENT LTD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE basic facts submitted during the argument today are that the petitioner's industry was referred to B.F.I.R. In the meantime, allegedly considering some kind of public interest so that the industry may be revived and continue in the State, in a meeting of a High Power Committee comprising representatives of the State Government, petitioner and the Electricity Board was held wherein the State Government agreed to make payment of certain arrears of A.M.G. and D.P.S. to the State Electricity Board, which means that the past dues would be taken care of by the State Government and the petitioner would be entitled to continue to run the industry upon a fresh electricity connection on payment of the current dues only.

(2.) THIS promise, according to the petitioner, was intended to be acted upon by the petitioner and it has in fact been acted upon by the petitioner by obtaining a fresh connection, investing large amount in the industry and continuing to pay all the current electricity dues of the Electricity Board. However, the State Government has so far failed to fulfill its promise but has been merely writing letters to the Electricity Board to keep the amount, which was supposed to be paid by the State Government, in abeyance.

(3.) PRIMA facie, even if this kind of undertaking had been given by the petitioner after the joint meeting of the High Power Committee it could not be interpreted to mean that the petitioner had agreed to absolve the State Government of the obligation under its promise. It could in that situation also be interpreted to mean that the petitioner legally and reasonably expected that the Slate Government would fulfill its obligation in accordance with principles of promissory estoppel, in respect of the promise which was held out in the presence of the petitioner with a view that such promise should be acted upon and the petitioner has in fact acted to its detriment relying upon that promise.