UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusSHRI HANUMAN INDUSTRIES & ANR.

                         [2015) 6 S.C.R. 302


A                    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                                  v.
              SHRI HANUMAN INDUSTRIES & ANR.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 3962 of 2011)
B                          MAY 08, 2015
              [M.Y. EQBAL AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
           Administrative law: Promissory estoppe/ - Scheme
C to provide financial assistance to newly set up industries -
  Respondents applied under the Scheme - Refusal of
  appellants to sanction financial assistance to the respondents
  under the Scheme - Another set of applicants with similar
  grievance instituted writ petitions in which High Court directed
  Implementing Authorities to process the applications of
0
  applicants for grant of incentives - Supreme Court upheld
  the said order - Respondents filed writ petitions on the same
  ground which was rejected by Single Judge of the High Court
  on the ground of delay and /aches - However, the Division
E Bench directed the Implementing Authorities for processing
  their. applications in view of earlier decision - Held: The
  respondents in view of their deliberate /aches, negligence
  and inaction have disentitled themselves to the benefit of
  the adjudication in the earlier /is - In the singular facts and
F circumstances, it would be inexpedient and uncalled for, for
  the public exchequer to entertain the belated claim of the
  respondents on the basis of the doctrine of promissory
  estoppe/ which is even otherwise inapplicable to the case in
  hand - Delay and /aches.
G
          Allowing the appeal, the Court

         HELD: 1. The writ petitioners in the earlier round
  of adjudication were applicants under the Scheme alike
H the respondents. They promptly approached the High
                                 302
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SHRI HANUMAN                 303
               INDUSTRIES & ANR.

Court with a batch of writ petitions in the year 2007 itself A
and were favoured with a direction to the implementing
authorities for consideration of their application for the
investment subsidy in accordance with law. Admittedly,
the respondents elected not to join them and instead,
soon after this Court had affirmed the above verdict on B
01-05-2009, staked their claim on 27-08-2009. There is
evidently thus, a time lag of more than two years by
which the respondents' challenge was delayed. It is a
matter of record, that by letter/notification dated 04-05-
2010 issued by the Secretary, Ministry of DONER, NEC, C
Shillong confirmation of the decision of withdrawal and
closure of SPINE with effect from 23-02-2007, was
notified. Therefore the scheme, SPINE stood withdrawn
and/or closed on and from 23-02-2007. By letter dated
                                                              0
01-10.2007, as a consequential step, the proposals which
had remained unprocessed as per the standard
procedures of the scheme were returned to the State
Governments. The list of proposals remitted back
admittedly included thc:ise amongst others of the E
respondents. In this pronounced backdrop, the plea of
the respondents that at the institution of the writ petitions
in 2009, no decision had been taken rejecting their
applications fades into insignificance, as those by
implication had not been entertained under the scheme. F
There was no promise on the part of the public
functionaries in charge of implementation of SPINE to
the respondents to extend benefits thereunder, inspite
of the decision to withdraw or close the same with effect
from 23-02-2007. [Paras 14, 14.1, 14.2) [316-A-H; 317-A- G
C, E-F]

      2. There was no cogent reason for the
respondents to wait till the earlier Special Leave Petition
was dismissed, to embark upon their pursuit for redress H
304      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A in similar terms. The respondents were deliberately
  bidding time, to seek judicial remedy in case their co-
  applicants under the scheme emerged successful. As
  the initial decision conveyed by the letter dated 05-02-
  2007 to stop further sanction/disbursement of Grant-in-
B Aid under the scheme pending scrutiny of the report of
  the industrial units involved did eventually
  metamorphosise in the closure/withdrawal of the
  scheme, there is an apparent correlation between the
  intervening developments conveyed from time to time
C eventuating in such a conclusion. The respondents in
  view of their deliberate laches, negligence and inaction
  have dis-entitled themselves to the benefit of the
  adjudication in the earlier lis. [Paras 17, 18] [319-8-F]

D     Mis Motilal Padampt Sugar Mills Co. vs. The State of
  Uttar Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1979 SCC 621: 1979 (2) SCR
  641; State of Punjab vs. Nestle India Ltd. 2004 (2)
  Suppl. SCR 135: (2004) 6 sec 465; MRF Limited vs.
  Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax. 2006 (6) Suppl. SCR
E 417: (2006) 8 sec 702; State of Orissa & Ors VS
  Mangalam Timber Products Limited. 2003 (0) Suppl. SCR
  476: (2004) 1 SCC 139; Basanti Prasad vs Chairman,
  Bihar School Examination Boards & Ors. 2009 (9) SCR
F 367: (2009) 6 SCC 791; Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs.
  Ujagar Singh & Ors. 2010 (7) SCR 376: (2010) 6 SCC
  786; Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Raghunathpur Nafar
  Academy & Ors. 2013 (9) SCR 782: (2013) 12 SCC 649
  - referred to.
G                   Case Law Reference
      1979 (2) SCR 641           referred to.   Para 13
      2004 (2) Suppl. SCR 135    referred to.   Para 13
      2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 417    referred to.   Para 13
H
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SHRI HANUMAN                  305
       INDUSTRIES & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

  2003 (0) Suppl. SCR 476        referred to.   Para 13      A
  2009 (9) SCR                   referred to.   Para 13
  2010 (7) SCR 376               referred to.   Para 13
  2013 (9) SCR 782               referred to.   Para 13

      CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal              B
No. 3962 of 2011

                          WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 3963-3965 and 3966-3969 of 2011            c
        From the Judgment and Order dated 16.06.2010 of
the High Court of Judicature at Guwahati (Shillong Bench)
in Writ Appeal 4 7 (SH) of 2009

      Dr. AbhishekAtrey, Sella Kumar, Brijesh Panchal, D.    D
S. Mahra for the Appellants.

      Nirupama Saikia, Azim H. Laskar, Abhijit Saikia,
Sachin Das, Abhijit Sengupta, Navnit Kumar (For Corporate
Law Group), Charu Mathur for the Respondents.                E

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       AMITAVA ROY, J. - 1. All these appeals seek to
impeach the decision rendered by the Guwahati High Court F
(Shilong Bench) in a batch ofWritAppeals preferred amongst
others by the respondents herein being aggrieved by the
dismissal of their respective writ petitions, questioning the
refusal of the appellants to sanction financial assistance to
them under the "Scheme of Promotion of Industries in North G
East" (SPINE) 9n the ground of delay and laches. By the
determination made in the appeals, the grievance of the
respondents has been redressed primarily on the basis of
the adjudication made earlier by the same High Court in
Writ Petition(C) No. 279 (SH) of 2007 since affirmed by this H
306        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015) 6 S.C.R.


A     Court by Order dated 01-05-2009 rendered in SLP(C) 9578-
      9584/2009.

          2. We have heard Dr.AbhishekAtrey, learned counsel
  for the appellant and Ms. N. Saikiya, learned counsel for the
B respondents.

         3. The individual facts qua the respondents marginally
  vary and do not demand separate dilation in the face of the
  common issues that need to be addressed. Common
C arguments have also been advanced. The pleadings
  pertaining to Civil Appeal No. 3962/2011, Union of India and
  Ors. vs Shri Hanuman Industries &Anr. would, therefore, be
  outlined for the factual foundation of the debate.

D         3.1 In the year 1997, a policy decision was taken by
  the Planning and Development Department, ,Government
  of India for promotion of industries in the North East Region,
  during the period of 91" Plan by providing inter alia a package
  of incentives to create an entrepreneurial environment. With
E this objective, a scheme nomenclatured SPINE, as above,
  was launched by the Ministry of Development of North
  Eastern Region, North Eastern Council, Shilong (for short
  DONER). In terms of the scheme, The North Eastern Council
  (NEC) was to provide to the newly set up industries to the
F extent of 25 per cent of the project cost or Rs. 50 lacs,
  whichever was less as deemed proper by the recommending
  authority on the fulfillment of the conditions stipulated therein.
  The Union of India, represented by the Ministry of DONER
  and the NEC were entrusted with the role of implementing
G the scheme.

         4. In response to this scheme, which was apparently
  akin to a State policy, the respondents on various dates
  submitted their applications accompanied by necessary
H documents for setting up their industries as mentioned
      UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SHRI HANUMAN                       307
        INDUSTRIES & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

therein inter alia disclosing the investments made even by A
obtaining financial accommodation from banking institutions
and otherwise. According to the respondents though their
applications remained pending and they were made to
understand that the same were being processed as per the
norms applicable, it was noticeable, that the implementing B
authorities were adopting pick and choose methods in the
matter of disbursement of the financial assistance to a
selected few by overlooking their worthy claims.

       5. It is a matter of record that another set of such C
applicants with the similar grievance had meanwhile instituted
writ proceedings registered as WP(C) 279 (SH) to 285 (SH)
of 2007 and eventually as adverted to hereinabove a Single
Bench followed by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High
Court had entertained the challenge made therein and the           D
implementing authorities of the scheme were directed to
process the applications of the said writ petitioners for grant
of subsidy under it (SPINE) in accordance with law and for
sanctioning the same to each of them, within a period of
ninety days from the receipt of the copy of the judgment and       E
order. To reiterate, this Court by its Order dated 01-05-2009
passed in SLP(C) 9578-9584/2009, declined to interfere with
this adjudication.

       6. Be that as it may, a learned Single Judge of the         F
same High Court by judgment and order dated 07-10-2009,
rejected the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein on
the ground of delay and !aches, the decision in the earlier
proceedings notwithstanding. This determination, however,
was reversed in the appeals filed by the respondents, by the G
common judgment and order impugned herein, whereby the
direction, in the earlier proceedings to the implementing
authority for processing the applications for investment
subsidy under SPINE in accordance with the law was H
reiterated vis-a-vis the present respondents. Being
308        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A     aggrieved, the Union of India and the NEC are before this
      Court.

          7. At this juncture, the admitted facts need be noted.
  As per the procedure prescribed, the applications submitted
B by the respondents along with the accompanying documents
  were to be routed through the Department of Industries of
  the respective State Governments to be forwarded to the
  NEC by the Planning Department of the State concerned
  and that no proposal was to be received directly by the NEC.
c
          8. While the said applications were thus pending a
  letter dated 05-02-2007 was issued by the Secretary, Ministry
  of Development of North Eastern Region etc. New Delhi,
  addressed to the Secretary North Eastern Council, Shilong
D referring to various correspondences mentioned therein
  pertaining to request for reports in respect of alleged financial
  irregularities in the disbursement of Grant-in-Aid under
  SPINE qua each unit for inquiry. It was underlined in the
  said letter that the report had been sought for to positively
E reach the issuing Ministry by 15-02-2007. It was in clear
  terms mentioned that in view of the pending inquiry and
  decisions in connection therewith, further sanction/
  disbursement of Grant-in-Aid particularly under SPINE
  should be stopped forthwith. The letter also contained a
F caveat that in case the report was not submitted by the
  deadline of time given, the matter would be forwarded for
  investigation.

         8.1 The records reveal that thereafter in the meeting
G of the Ministry of DONER to review the scheme of the NEC
  with particular reference to SPINE held on 21-02-2007, it
  was resolved amongst others that a committee would be
  constituted to monitor and evaluate projects before release
  of funds under the SPINE. Subsequent thereto, the Deputy
H Secretary, NEC addressed a letter dated 23-2-2007 to the
      UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SHRI HANUMAN                        309
        INDUSTRIES & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

Commissioner and Secretary, Planning Department of the A
North Eastern States as named therein intimating about the
receipt of a letter from the Secretary, Ministry of DONER,
recommending discontinuance of SPINE immediately. The
letter further required that a review of the liabilities be
undertaken and submitted for necessary decision by the B
Chairman, NEC. That this view of the Ministry of DONER,
had also been shared with the State Governments, was
mentioned. The addressee was requested to ensure that no
new proposal for consideration under SPINE be forwarded
~NEC.                                                       C

         8.2 It is noticeable, that with effect from 01-04-2007,
the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion did approve
a package of fiscal incentives and other concessions for the        D
northeast region named "Northeast Industrial and Investment
Promotion Policy (NEllPP) 2007". Parallely by a
communication dated 04-09-2007, the Government of India,
Ministry of DONER reiterated its request to the Industries
and Commerce Department of Government of Assam to get               E
the industries in the list appended thereto, inspected and
reports submitted to the NEC as per the format enclosed.
The letter disclosed that a formal meeting of the Committee
in this regard would consider and recommend further release         F
to the said industries. It was thereafter that the same Ministry
i.e. of D9NER vide its letter dated 01-10-2007 addressed to
the Commissioner and Secretary, Planning and
Development, Assam while referring to its earlier letter dated
23-02-2007, conveyed that as the proposals pending at the          G
time of closure of SPINE could no longer be processed, it
had been decided that the same be returned to the State
Governments. Thereby a list of.the pending proposals, State-
wise, was forwarded with the observation that the Units
concerned could take the benefit of Northeast Industrial and        H
310       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2015] 6 S.C.R.


A  Investment Promotion Policy 2007(NEllPP - 2007). It was
  assured that the relevant papers would be returned at a later
  date. The list appended amongst others contained the
  names of the respondent units involved in the present
  proceedings. It is thus apparent from the communication
B dated 01-10-2007 and the annexures thereto that atthe time
  of the issuance thereof indicating the closure of SPINE, the
  proposals vis-a-vis these units had remained pending and
  were not processed as per the procedure prescribed. In the
  contemporary context, the media also flashed the decision
C of withdrawal of SPINE at or about the same time. Prior to
  these developments, the working group on NEC while
  deliberating upon the related issues for the 11th Five Year
  Plan held on 22-06-2006, however, had recommended
  continuance of SPINE with improved guidelines to block
0
  loopholes, increase opportunities for generating local
  employment and expedite industrialisation of the region. This
  recommendation, however, needless to mention, has to be
  construed in the backdrop of the decision for closure of
E SPINE as was taken and communicated vide the letters
  dated 23-2-2007 and 01-10-2007 alluded hereinabove.

         9. Exasperated by the delay in the grant of the
  incentives under SPINE, to reiterate, several similarly situated
F industrial units had meanwhile approached the Guwahati
  High Court with a series of writ petitions seeking judicial
  intervention. By common judgment and order dated 20-06-
  2008, the petitions were allowed by the Single Judge of that
  Court directing the implementing authorities to process the
G applications of the writ petitioners for grant of subsidy under
  SPINE in accordance with law for sanctioning the same to
  each of them without being influenced by the letter dated
  05-02-2007 of the Secretary, Ministry of DONER within a
  period of ninety days from the receipt of the copy of the
H judgment and order. In pronouncing this verdict, the learned
      UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SHRI HANUMAN                     311
        INDUSTRIES & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

Single Judge inter alia recorded that relying on the assurance A
under the scheme, units concerned had materially altered
their positions by investing huge amounts for setting up their
respective new industrial units even by obtaining secured
and unsecured loans and that denial of the financial
assistance under the scheme would result in their closure B
observing that the letter dated 05-02-2007 did not indicate
withdrawal of the scheme and that only enquiry into some
irregularities was comprehended. The learned Single Judge
noted as well that meanwhile the concerned industries had
made their units functional. The minutes of the meeting C
dated 21-02-2007 was also taken note of in expressing this
view. The learned Single Judge entertained the plea of
promissory estoppel as well in issuing the operative
directions.
                                                               D
        9.1 This decision was taken in appeals before a
Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court by the Union of
India and NEC which were dismissed on 27-11-2008.
Admittedly, the present respondents were not parties in the
earlier round of litigation. This adjudication undertaken by E
the Guwahait High Court, attained finality by the order dated
01-05-2009 passed by this Court in SLP No. 9578-9584/
2009, whereby the same was left uninterfered.

        10. Close on the heels of this affirmation by this Court, F
the respondents herein on 27-08-2009 filed their writ petitions
claiming the same relief seeking parity of treatment. The
learned Single Judge of the Guwahati High Court by
judgment and order dated 07-10-2009 dismissed all the
petitions analogously heard on the ground of delay and G
laches. Observing with reference to the relevant decisions
of this Court that the benefit of a judicial verdict in a case
cannot automatically be extended to another more
particularly in the face of unexplained and/or unsatisfactory H
explanation of delay in between, the learned Single Judge
312         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015) 6 S.C.R.


A     declined the relief holding that the exercise of powers under
      Article 226 of the Constitution of India was primarily equitable
      in nature. According to the learned Single Judge, in the
      attendant facts and circumstances, the respondents were
      not only aware of the decision of the concerned authorities
B     to wind up SPINE by refusing financial assistance thereunder
      as intimated by the letter dated 05-02-2007, it was held as
      well that the respondents without joining the writ petitioners
      in the earlier outing had deliberately chosen to await the
      outcome thereof and thus were really fence sitters to avail
C     the benefit of a favourable verdict, if forthcoming. The
      learned Single Judge was of the view that the passive
      conduct of the respondents herein tantamounted to sleeping
      over their rights for over two years to wake from their feigned
D     slumber after the decision of this Court on 01-05-2009, to
      agitate their perceived rights. That having regard as were,
      to the financial implications that would ensue in case the
      inordinately delayed claim of the respondents is/was by
      entertained, thus adversely impacting upon public exchequer,
E     the learned Single Judge declined the relief sought for.

          11. By the decision impugned in the present
  proceedings, a Division Bench of the same High Court
  reversed these findings and granted the relief prayed for by
F the respondents in the same terms as sanctioned earlier to
  the otherwise equally placed industrial units. The Division
  Bench adverted inter alia to the letters dated 05-02-2007
  and 04-05-201 Oissued by the Ministry of DONER apart from
  heavily relying on the decision in the earlier lis and returned
G a finding that SPINE had continued till the issuance of the
  notification/letter dated 04-05-2010. Their Lordships held
  the view that as the respondents had set up their industrial
  units during the validity of the scheme and their claims were
  pending in course thereof, the appellants, the implementing
H authorities were obliged to consider the same. That the view
      UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SHRI HANUMAN                         313
        INDUSTRIES & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.)

taken by the learned Single Judge was inconsistent with the          A
one taken in the judgment and order dated 20-6-2008 was
also noted. It was held as well that apart from the fact that
there was no prescribed period of limitation to invoke the
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
as under the Limitation Act 1963, it was in any case, three          B
years, their writ petitions could not have been dismissed on
the ground of delay. In any view of the matter, it was observed
that, the time lag in filing the writ petitions could not have
been reckoned from 05-02-2007 where the SPINE was not
closed. That the implementing authorities did not at any point       C
of time communicate to the respondents the rejection of their
claims was also recorded. The aspect of financial
implications was also dismissed as inconsequential. Relying
on the determination made in the earlier proceedings, the            D
appellants herein were directed to process the application
of the respondents for investment subsidy under SPINE in
accordance with the law and without being influenced by
the letter dated 05-02-2007 for sanctioning the same within
a period of ninety days. In another words, the operative             E
directions contained in the judgment and order dated 20-
06-2008 in the earlier batch of writ petitions was replicated
vis-a-vis the respondents.

         12. In the backdrop of this factual matrix, Dr. Atrey F
the learned counsel for the appellants has insistently argued
that it being apparent on a combined reading of the letters
dated 05-02-2007, 20-3-2007 and 04-05-2010 that a
conscious decision had been taken by the concerned
authorities to discontinue SPINE with effect from 23-2-2007, G
the writ petitions of the respondents, who had admittedly
not joined the earlier set of industrial units had been rightly
rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground of
unexplained delay , laches and inaction on their part.
Referring to the letter dated 04-05-2010 in particular, he has H
314         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015) 6 S.C.R.


A      urged that it being evident therefrom that SPINE had been
       discontinued with effect from 23-02-2007, an advance
       indication to that effect being disclosed in the letter dated
       05-02-2007 preceding thereto, and conveyed by the one
      dated 23-2-2007, it is apparent that the respondents herein
B      had not approached the Guwahati High Court in time, to
      take a gambling chance later on and to cash upon any
      favourable verdict in the earlier litigation. As the approach
      of the respondents lack in bonafide and as they cannot be
C     construed to have invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High
      Court in time, their claim had been rightly rejected by the
      learned Single Judge in the exercise of the equitable
      prerogative~ he urged. The learned counsel maintained that
      as the claim of the respondents had not been allowed during
      the pendency of SPINE, they have no vested right to insist
0
      for a direction to sanction the incentives thereunder and thus
      the impugned judgment and order in the prevailing facts and
      circumstances ought to be interfered with. He further argued
      that not only on the closure of the scheme in 2007, as
E     conveyed by the letter dated 23-2-2007, the pending
      proposals including those of the respondents herein had
      been returned to the respective State Governments, in
      absence of any challenge to the said decision, the
      respondents even otherwise are not entitled to the benefit
F     under it. According to the learned counsel, the respondents
      are not entitled to the benefit of the earlier adjudication and
      that if their claim is entertained it would not only signify
      unwarranted premium on their speculative inaction but also
      would severely impinge upon the financial resources of the
G     State qua an unworthy cause.

          13. As against this, Ms. N. Saikia has emphatically
  argued that the respondents being similarly placed with the
  writ petitioners in the earlier proceedings, they had been
H rightly extended equal treatment and thus the impugned
      UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SHRI HANUMAN                  315
        INDUSTRIES & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

judgment and order is unassailable in law and on facts. As A
admittedly by the letter dated 05-02-2007, the scheme had
not been withdrawn and in fact no decision rejecting their
claim thereunder had ever been conveyed to the
respondents, the action of the appellants in endeavouring
to deny the benefit thereunder is patently arbitrary, whimsical B
and unconstitutional, she urged. In any view of the matter,
according to the learned counsel, as the implementing
authorit.ies were generally sloth in processing the
applications, taking about four/five years' time to complete
the process, the respondents could not have been non-suited C
on the purported ground of delay and laches. While asserting
that the scheme was in force when the writ petitions were
filed Ms. N. Saikia insisted that the respondents having
altered their position in view of the incentives promissed
                                                                0
thereunder, the action of the appellants in declining them ·
the same is violative of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
According to the learned counsel, as others similarly placed
with the respondents have been extended the benefits under
the scheme, the denial to the respondents was discriminatory E
as well. The following decisions were relied upon to buttress
the above assertions:

AIR 1979 SCC 621 MIS Motilal Padampt Sugar Mills Co. -
Vs- The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2004) 6 SCC 465 F
State of Punjab -Vs- Nestle India Ltd., (2006) 8 SCC 702
MRF Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax., (2004)
1 SCC 139 State of Orissa & Ors Vs Mangalam Timber
Products Limited., (2009) 6 SCC 791 Basanti Prasad Vs
Chairman, Bihar School Examination Boards & Ors., (2010) G
6 SCC 786 Improvement Trust, Ludhiana VS. Ujagar Singh
& Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 649 Esha Bhattacharjee Vs.
Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors.

      14. The pleaded facts and the competing arguments        H
have received our due attention. To start with, it is not
316         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 6 S.C.R.


A disputed that the writ petitioners in the earlier round of
  adjudication were applicants under SPINE alike the
  respondents herein. They being appalled by the delay in
  the grant of their receivables thereunder and being faced
  with the letter dated 05-02-2007 whereby pending receipt
B and scrutiny of the reports as called for, further sanction/
  disbursement of Grants-in-Aid under the said scheme was
  stopped, did promptly approach the Guwahati High Court
  with a batch of writ petitions in the year 2007 itself and as
  narrated hereinabove were favoured with a direction to the
c implementing authorities for consideration of their application
  for the investment subsidy in accordance with law without
  being influenced by the said letter. Admittedly, the
  respondents herein elected not to join them and instead,
  soon thereafter this Court affirmed the above verdict on 01-
0
  05-2009, staked their claim on 27-08-2009. There is
  evidently thus a time lag of more than two years by which
  the respondents' challenge was delayed.

              14.1 It is a matter of record, that by letter/notification
E     dated 04-05-2010 issued by the Secretary, Ministry of
      DONER, NEC, Shillong, confirmation of the decision of
      withdrawal and closure of SPINE with effect from 23-02-2007,
      was notified. A plain perusal of the contents of this document
F     would reveal in no uncertain terms that the withdrawal and
      closure of SPINE had been effected by an Order of
      Government of India vide NEC/PLAN/ii-23-2-2007. Thus
      the letter/notification dated 04-05-2010, did relate back to
      23-02-2007 for all intents and purposes. Therefore the
G     scheme, SPINE stood withdrawn and/or closed on and from
      23-02-2007. As a corollary, on a cumulative reading of the
      letters dated 05-02-2007, 23-02-2007 and 04-05-2010 as
      well as the resolution dated 21-02-2007 it is indubitable that
      SPINE stood withdrawn and/or closed with effect from 23-
H     02-2007. As adverted to hereinabove, by letter dated 01-
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SHRI HANUMAN                     317
         INDUSTRIES & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.)

  10.2007, as a consequential step, the proposal which had A
  remained unprocessed as per the standard procedures of
  the scheme were returned to the State Governments: The
  list of proposals remitted back admittedly included those
  amongst others of the respondents herein. It is thus patent
  that on such date i.e. 01-10-2007, the claims of the B
· respondents had not been accepted and in view of the
  closure of the scheme, were returned to the respective State
  Governments. In this pronounced backdrop, the plea of the
  respondents that at the institution of the writ petitions in 2009,
  no decision had been taken rejecting their applications fades C
  into insignificance, as those by implication had not been
  entertained under the scheme.

        14.2 The letters dated 04-08-2006, 04-09-2007 and
 12-09-2007 to which our attention has been drawn in course D
 of the arguments, suffice it to mention, do not contain any
 assurance on the part of the implementing authorities
 promising grant of the subsidy allowance under the scheme
 or any other incentive to the respondent. No reference has
 been made before us of any other document qua the other E
 respondents. We are thus constrained to hold that there
 was no promise on the part of the public functionaries in
 charge of implementation of SPINE to the respondents to
 extend benefits thereunder, inspite of the decision to withdraw F.
 or close the same with effect from 23-02-2007.

         15. In M/s Motilal Padampt Sugar Mills Company
 supra; this Court, on an exhaustive survey of the law
 pertaining to the doctrine of promissory estoppel held that
 the same was an equitable doctrine that would yield when G
 equity so required. While propounding that the same had
 been evolved to avoid injustice where it is demonstrated that
·a party acting on the words or conduct of another, amounting
 to clear and unequivocal promise and intended to create ·H
 legal relations or effect legal relationships to arise in the future
318        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015) 6 S.C.R.


,:. had altered his position, then the promise would be binding
   on .the promiser and he would not be permitted to renege
   therefro1-:'1 unless it would be inequitable to compel him to do
   so. While eXl~.'lding this doctrine to the Government as well,
   it was enunciated that if it can be shown that having regard
B to the facts as had subsequently transpired, it would be
  inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by
  it, the Court would not raise the equity in favour of the
  promisee and enforce the promise against the Government.
C Their Lordships held that the doctrine of the promissory
  estoppel would be displaced in such a case, because on the
  facts, equity would not require that the Government should
  be held bound by the promise made by it. That aside
  overriding public interest against enforcement of the doctrine
  qua the Government, it would be still competent for it to depart
0
  from the promise on giving reasonable notice which need
  not be a formal one, affording the promisee a reasonable
  opportunity of resuming his position was underlined. We
  consider it inessential to dilate on the other decisions cited
E on behalf of the respondents on this theme as these are in
  essence in reiteration of the above proposition.

          16. The gravamen of the authorities pertaining to delay
  highlight in unison that the same has to be eixplained by
F cogent convincing and persuasive explanation to justify
  condonation thereof. The legal diktat being so fundamental
  that a detailed treatment of the decisions relied upon by the
  respondents in this regard is not warranted.

          17. Noticeably, in the earlier round of litigation, there
G was no scope to examine the purport of the contents of the
  letter dated 04-05-2010, which to reiterate only affirmed the
  decision of withdrawal and closure of SPINE with effect from
  23-02-2007. The contents of the said letter to repeat disclose
H in unequivocal terms that even prior thereto a decision to
  that effect had been taken on and from that date. This
,.,    UNION .OF INDIA & ORS. v. SHRI HANUMAN
                                          . ,,
         INDUSTRIES & ANR. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

 decision as referred to hereinabove amongst others also A
 received media coverage. The plea that the respondents
 had no knowledge of the withdrawal/closure of SPINE then,
 is to say the least, unconvincing. We see no weighty or cogent
 reason for the respondents to wait till the earlier Special
 Leave Petition was dismissed on 01-05-2009 by this Court B
 to embark upon their pursuit for redress in similar terms.
 Their writ petitions dated 27-08-2009 also do not evince that
 the same were filed after the letter/notification dated 04-05-
 2010. In our considered opinion therefore, the respondents
 were deliberately bidding time to seek judicial remedy in case C
 their co-applicants under the scheme emerged successful
 in their adjudicative enterprise. As the initial decision
 conveyed by the letter dated 05-02-2007 to stop further
 sanction/disbursement of Grant-in-Aid under the scheme
                                                                 0
 pending scrutiny of the report of the industrial units involved
 did eventually metamorphosise in the closure/withdrawal of
 the scheme, there is an apparent correlation between the
 intervening developments conveyed from time to time
 eventuating in such a conclusion. The merit of the factums E
 leading to this decision however has not been questioned or
 impeached.

         18. On a consideration of the totality of the aspects
 involved, we are thus of the unhesitant view that the F
 respondents herein in view of their deliberate !aches,
 negligence and inaction have disentitled themselves to the
 benefit of the adjudication in the earlier lis. In the
 accompanying facts and circumstances in our
 comprehension, it would be iniquitous and repugnant as well G
 to the public exchequer to entertain the belated claim of the
 respondents on the basis of the doctrine of promissory
 estoppel which is even otherwise inapplicable to the case in
 hand.
                                                                H
        19. For the foregoing determination, we are
320          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  . [2015) 6 S.C.R.
                           :, :'. .: ' i •. _1::1


A constrained to interfere with the impugned judgment and
  order which is hereby set aside. The appeals are allowed.
  No cost.

      Devika Gujral                                 Appeals allowed.
 B