JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.:—Special leave granted.

2. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (the Board), in exercise of its powers under S. 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (the Act) issued order dated September 17, 1975 granting rebate of 25% in demand and energy charges for High Tension Industries. It was specifically mentioned therein that the rebate was to be allowed from the date of going into regular production on or after January 1, 1976. The Board, thereafter, asked the Director of Industries to identify the High Tension Industries which would be eligible for the 25% rebate declared by the Board. The State Government issued the order dated July 13, 1976 extending the rebate to all the industries except 65 notified in the Government order dated March 9, 1976. Thereafter the Board issued order dated August 10, 1976 extending the concession to all the High Tension Industries except the 65 excluded by the State Government.

3. The State Government issued order dated August 23, 1985 specifying certain incentives available to the industries in the three backward districts of the State. The concession of 25% tariff already granted by the Board was extended for two more years i.e. a total of five years.

4. The Board withdrew the concession of 25% rebate to the High Tension Industries by its order dated December 8, 1987. The State Government also issued similar order dated July 27, 1989 withdrawing the rebate.

5. The respondent M/s. Sarada Ferro Alloys Ltd. (the Company) decided to establish an industry to produce Ferro Chrome. According to the company it obtained a small scale industry certificate on September 5, 1986. It further obtained no objection certificate from Andhra Pradesh Pollution Board on November 12,1986. The case of the company further is that it purchased 4.01 acres of land during the period September 1986 to May, 1989. The Board called upon the company by its letter dated December 9, 1987 to deposit Rs. 8,40,200/- towards service-lines. The company entered into an agreement with the Board on August 21, 1989. for the supply of the electricity. It is the case of the company that it commenced production on regular basis on August 11, 1990.

6. The company requested the Board by its letter dated June 29, 1991 to extend concession of 25% rebate for a period of five years from the date it started production. The company based its demand on the State Government order dated August 23, 1985. The Board by its letter dated July 9, 1991 declined to give the concession to the company on the ground that the said concession had already been withdrawn by the Board by its order dated December 8, 1987.

7. The company challenged the communication of Board dated July 9, 1991 by way of a writ petiton before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The company further sought a declaration that it was entitled to 25% power rebate as declared by the State Government in its letter dated August 23, 1985. The learned single Judge of the High Court by its judgment dated November 8, 1991 allowed the writ petition. The writ appeal preferred by the Board was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated February 7,1992. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High Court,

8. The High Court allowed the writ petition of the company on the sole ground that the respondent-company having acted upon the representation made by the Board and the State Government, the doctrine of promissory estoppel was attracted and as such the Board and the State Government were bound to grant 25% rebate for a period of five years. The Division Bench of the High Court based its conclusions on the reasoning which is reproduced hereunder :-

"The material now before us clearly shows that by 30-6-87 the company had incurred an expenditure of Rupees 11,07,328/- towards purchase of land and other expenditure including civil works. Even if we take 8-12-87 as the relevant date it cannot be disputed that by that date considerable exp