Point of law: The doctrine of promissory estoppel is by now well recognized and well defined by a catena of decisions of this Court. Where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promise and, in fact, the promise, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promise notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 229 of the Constitution. The rule of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine has to be moulded to suit the particular situation. It is not a hard-and-fast rule but an elastic one, the objective of which is to do justice between the parties and to extend an equitable treatment to them. This doctrine is a principle evolved by equity, to avoid injustice and though commonly named promissory estoppel, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. For application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel the promise must establish that he suffered in detriment or altered his position by reliance on the promise

ORDER:

The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows:

“…..to issue a writ order or Order more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.93, MA & UD, dated 01.03.2019 allotting only 91 cents (4404 Sq.yards) in Sy.No.350/2, Madhurawada village out of the total land to the extent of Ac.1-95 cents agreed to be allotted to the petitioner firm and also not providing the benefit of Tourism Policy 2015-20 and five years lease rental waiver which was agreed vide Memo No.3808/M2/2014, dated 11.05.2018 and Letter Rc.No.2340/2018/Estate/F1, dated 01.05.2018 of the 3rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the 1st respondent to comply with the conditions contained in the Memo No.3808/M2/2014, dated 11.05.2018 of the 1st respondent by issuing appropriate orders and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

The petitioner before this Court is the successful tenderer in a tender that was notified in the year 2012 for development of plots of a land in MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam.

The tender was floated by the 2nd respondent. This tender was floated for the development of the site under the Public Private Participation Mode (P.P.P. Mode). The site measures Ac.0-91 cents in MVP Colony/Chinna Walatair. For various reasons the allotment of the site and the physical development of the same was delayed and ultimately the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.41619 of 2017 followed by W.P.No.5543 of 2018 challenging the decision taken by the State. An interim order was granted by the Court in W.P.No.5543 of 2018 restraining the State and others from allotting the site of Ac.0-91 cents in Sy.No.21/1P of MVP Colony to the third parties. Thereafter the authorities entered into a dialogue and according to the petitioner an alternative site measuring Ac.1-95 cents in Sy.No.350/2 of Madhurawada village was agreed to be allotted to the petitioner on the condition that he withdraws the Writ Petition and accepts the site. The petitioner submits that consequent on the representations made by the respondents, they have withdrawn the Writ Petition and after the Writ Petition was withdrawn the petitioner was allotted only Ac.0-91 cents in Madhurawada instead of entire Ac.1-95 cents. This is the sum and substance of the dispute. According to the petitioner the rule of promissory estoppel clearly applies and that the Writ Petition was withdrawn on the representation made that he would be allotted alternative site of Ac.1-95 cents in Sy.No.350/2 of Madhurawada in lieu of Ac.0-91 cents in Sy.No.21/1P of ChinnaWaltair/ MVP Colony (Land in Sy.No.21/P of Chinna Waltair / MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam is hereinafter called the “Original” site and the land in Sy.No.350/2 of Madhurawada is called the “alternative” site).

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri C. Raghu argues that this is clear case of promissory estoppel. According to 2nd 3rd him a representation was made by the and respondents, pursuant to which the petitioner has changed his position/stand and withdrew the Writ Petition. After the Writ Petition was withdrawn, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have gone back on their promise. He points out that from a reading of the correspondence at more than one place the State had agreed that the alternative land for Ac.1-95 cents in Madhurawada is to be allotted since the petitioner was surrendering the original land of Ac.0-91 cents in ChinnaWaltair / MVP Colony. He draws the attention of this Court to the Memo dated 15.05.2018 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government, wherein the petitioner was directed to withdraw the Writ Petition and notes that the Vice Chairman of the rdrespondent-Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority has identified an alternative land measuring Ac.1-95 cents for allotment. He also draws the attention of this Court