Judgment

PUNCHHI, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur whereby the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by Orient Paper Mills Ltd., the sole respondent herein, was allowed and as a sequel the order dated March 15, 1973 of the State Government declining to grant the respondent exemption from payment of electricity duty for the period from February 16, 1965 to February 15, 1970 and pursuant demand notices dated March 20, 1973 and April 3, 1973 were quashed. The aggrieved State of Madhya Pradesh and its concerned officers are the appellants challenging the same.

2. The respondent had need to go to the High Court to have an assurance dated August 1, 1961 regarding exemption from payment of electricity duty given by the State of Madhya Pradesh in its declared industrial policy observed, which may well be reproduced here at the outset: "Where power has to be generated by industrialists themselves, exemption from electricity duty shall be granted for a period of five years from the date the plant goes into production. The concession shall be applicable only to new generating sets installed during the Third Plan period."

3. Factually it was not disputed before the High Court, that the case of the respondent squarely falls within the scope of the assurance reproduced above since the industrial plant of the respondent had gone into production with effect from February 16, 1965, the generating set put up was new, and had been installed during the Third Plan period. Toformalise the matter, the respondent had corresponded with the government for the grant of the requisite exemption. Since the same was rejected and demands for payment of electricity duty created, the High Court was requested to issue suitable writs, directions and orders cancelling the aforesaid orders and demand notices and granting exemption from payment of electricity duty in respect of electricity self-generated by the respondent during the said period of five years, and also commanding the State to carry out the assurance and promises made in the said industrial policy dated August 1, 1961 extracted above and then requiring the State to issue a notification under Section 3-B of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 granting exemption or exception to the respondent from payment of electricity duty and other allied consequential reliefs.

4. Before the High Court voluminous documentary evidence was given by the parties in support of their respective pleadings. The High Court, on consideration of the entire material placed before it, spelled out a promissory estoppel in favour of the respondent and concluded as follows: "To conclude, we are of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel in order to claim exemption from payment of electricity duty for a period of five years from February 16, 1965 to February 15, 1970 in terms of the assurance of the State Government, dated August 1, 1961. Of course, as indicated earlier it is not for us to issue any writ directing the State Government to grant the petitioner exemption in terms of Section 3-A(vii) or Section 3-B of the M.P. Electricity Duty (Amendment) Act, 1949. But in view of the unambiguous and unequivocal assurance given by the State Government on August 1, 1961 we can certainly quash the order of the State Government, dated March 15, 1973 as also the demand notices, dated March 20, 1973 (petitioners Annexure 48) and dated April 3, 1973 (petitioners Annexure 50) and leave the matter at that. It would be for the government to work out its own course of action on that basis."

5. Mr Prithvi Raj, learned counsel for the appellant urged that on the facts and circumstances of the case there was no occasion to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel. It was asserted that though the industrial policy was published by the State Government on August 1, 1961 containing