The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which bound the Respondent authorities to their promise made in the SPINE and protected the rights of the writ Petitioners who had altered their positions based on the promise.

Maibam B.K. Singh, J.

1. These seven writ appeals being WA No. 31 (SH) 2008, WA No. 30 (SH) 2008, WA No. 32 (SH) 2008, WA No. 26 (SH) 2008, WA No. 27 (SH) 2008, WA No. 28 (SH) 2008 and WA No. 29 (SH) 2008, relate to WPC No. 279 (SH) 2007, WPC No. 280 (SH) 2007, WP (C) No. 281 (SH) 2007, WP (C) No. 282 (SH) 2007, WP (C) No. 283 (SH) 2007, WP (C) No. 284 (SH) 2007 and WP (C) No. 285 (SH) 2007 respectively. All the said seven writ petitions, which had been filed challenging the refusal of the Respondent authorities in the writ petitions to release to the writ Petitioners the financial assistance under the Scheme for promotion of Industries in the North East (SPINE) in terms of the letter dated 22.6.2006 of the Chief of Division, NEC Cell, Planning and Development Department, were disposed of by a Single Judge of this Court vide a common judgment dated 20.06.2008. Purportedly, being aggrieved by the said common judgment, the present writ appeals have been filed challenging its legality. Since similar facts and common question of law are involved in these writ appeals they are heard and proceeded together.

2. We have heard Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of all the Appellants and Mrs. N. Saikia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of all the Respondents writ Petitioners.

3. While disposing of the said seven writ petitions, the learned Single Judge directed the concerned Respondents to process the applications of all the writ Petitioners for grant of subsidy under SPINE in accordance with law for sanctioning the same due to each of them without being influenced by the letter dated 5.2.2007 of the Secretary in the Ministry of DoNER within a period of 90 days from the receipt of the judgment.

4. On perusal of the records before the Court, we find that the learned Single Judge, after due hearing of the parties and consideration of their pleadings and materials before the Court, held to the effect that the Scheme known as "Scheme for Promotion of Industries in the North East" or in otherwise as SPINE was launched by the Respondent authorities to bring about speedy industrialization of the North Eastern Region through the NEC, that the policy decision of the Respondent authorities for subsidizing 25% of the project cost or Rs. 50 lakhs whichever was less subject to a maximum limit of Rs. 50 lakhs and as deemed proper by the recommending authority under the terms stipulated constituted a valid and unequivocal promise on the part of the Respondent authorities and that the Respondent authorities expected interested persons to act on the said promise.

5. Further findings of the learned Single Judge were to the effect that the writ Petitioners, relying on the said promise/assurance made under the SPINE, materially altered their respective position by investing a huge amount in connection with setting up of their respective new industrial units after taking huge amount of both secured and un-secured loans, that though the writ Petitioners submitted their respective applications in the prescribed form with all the necessary documents for assistance under the SPINE to the NEC through the Line Departments, the said applications were kept pending by the Secretary, NEC despite due recommendations by the Industries and Commerce Department, Assam, and that in case of not getting financial assistance under the SPINE, the said Industries would be facing closure. After referring to the letter dated 5.2.2007 of the Secretary in the Ministry of DoNER, in terms whereof the SPINE was alleged to have been withdrawn, the learned Single Judge held that there was nothing in the letter to indicate about the alleged withdrawal of the SPINE. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge, merely on the basis of the direction for stopping grant-in-aid under the Scheme pending inquiry about some irregularities, it could not be said that the Scheme had been withdrawn. Moreover, in the opinion of the learned Single Judge even assuming that the Scheme w