The main legal point established in the judgment is that the fulfillment of conditions is essential for receiving government subsidies, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel may not apply if the conditions are not met.

ORDER :

Nirzar S. Desai, J.

1. By way of the present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, the present appellant has challenged the oral judgment dated 30.09.2013 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4030 of 2004 whereby the petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Megha Jani for learned advocate Mr. Mit Thakkar for the appellant, learned Central Government Counsel Mr. Viral Shah for the Respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.2 – State.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are stated as under:

3.1 The present appellant association is a limited company promoted by 229 member units having their industries of different nature located in Naroda Industrial Estate, GIDC, Ahmedabad and was incorporated under relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The object of the appellant is to reduce the intensity of pollution caused by member units by Commissioning and running a Common Effluent Treatment Plant (‘CETP’, for short).

3.2 In the decade of 1990’s, the Industrial Pollution Control Project (‘IPCP’, for short) was floated by Union of India to meet with the problem of pollution. The object of the scheme was to assist the establishment of pollution treatment plants by providing some financial assistance. The Central Government used to disburse the funds received by it from the World Bank to assist the establishment of ‘CETP’ and to strengthen the Pollution Control Board of States affected by pollution.

3.3 As per the scheme, for receiving the grant for project, concerned company or society must have “constituted specifically to own, operate and maintain common facilities for treatment and disposal of solid, liquid and gaseous wastes generated by small and medium scale units located in industrial estates / clusters”. As per the scheme, the eligible units would be provided financial assistance to the extent that State and Central Government both would release 25% of the project cost each and remaining 50% was to be borne by promotores of the companies or society. Accordingly, the present appellant also made an application for grant of 7.95 crores to the respondent on 26.03.1997. As the appellant was found eligible, State Government sanctioned the subsidy of Rs.155.06 lakhs vide letter dated 24.03.1999. Out of sanctioned subsidy, the State Government released the total amount of Rs.124.80 lakhs in March, 2000 and in March, 2001. However, though Respondent No.1 – Union of India received an application of the appellant, it did not release its share of grant to the tune of 25%.

3.4 Thereafter, some communication took place between the appellant and the Respondent No.1 for disbursement of 25% share of Central Government, some meeting also took place and in the month of May, 2002, the Respondent No.1 informed the appellant that the scheme had concluded. It is the case of the appellant that appellant was advised to apply afresh under the new scheme for subsidy for ‘CETP’, as the scheme under which the appellant – original petitioner had applied was already over. Accordingly, the appellant applied afresh for subsidy for its ‘CETP’.

3.5 After having applied afresh, as the Central Government did not disburse the amount of subsidy to the tune of 25% of the total project cost, the appellant preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No.4030 of 2004 praying for issuance of writ of mandamus and thereby sought direction against the respondent to release the corresponding share of Central Government towards the grant of subsidy under the said scheme.

3.6 The writ petition preferred by the present appellant – original petitioner being Special Civil Application No.4030 of 2004 was opposed by the Union of India by taking a stand that the said petition suffers from delay and laches and there was no promise by Union of India in the year 1997 to 1999, for the release of part of grant as the petition w