Administrative orders regarding financial concessions must be interpreted prospectively, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies to state actions restricting previously established benefits.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner company since 2013 is running a five star hotel in Vayalar in Alappuzha District established, as a part of Tourism Promotion and, obtained High Tension electric connection from the Kerala State Electricity Board. The Government of Kerala vide order dated 26-09-2000 G.O.(MS)No. 537/2000/GAD Thiruvananthapuram, declared certain benefits to industrial units like Five Star Hotel as a part of promoting “Tourism” industry one of which was concession in electricity charges. As a result of the aforementioned order dated 26-09-2000 G.O. (MS)No. 537/2000/GAD Thiruvananthapuram produced herein as Ext.P1, the first respondent, State Government undertook to pay the difference between the commercial tariff and industrial tariff as subsidy and the same order was adopted by the Kerala State Electricity Board vide Order No. 106/2001[Plg.Com 923/86] commercial cell dated 12- 01-2001.

2. Taking into account of the said promise by the first respondent, petitioner established the Five Star Hotel unit and being an industry coming within the ambit of the Ext.P1 order, a claim for tariff concession for five years starting from 11-12-2013 to 10-12-2018 for the electricity consumed by them at the rate offered as in the government order Ext.P1, by which the first respondent is liable to pay the entire amount to the third respondent Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd, was submitted. Repeated demands were made by the petitioner for the disbursal of the amount but of no avail. Thereafter, invoked jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court through writ petition W.P.(C ) No. 22526 of 2018 demanding the disbursal of the amount and this Hon'ble court, after considering that first respondent did not dispute the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefits under the impugned Government order therein, but since a large such applications are pending before them and budgetary allocations could not be done owing to large amount, directed the first respondent, State Government of Kerala to issue appropriate orders either sanctioning the amounts claimed by them or inform them as to why such amounts cannot be paid within six weeks thereon so that the petitioner can take his legal recourse forward as per entitlement, vide Judgement dated 07-02-2019 Ext.P2. Prior to the aforementioned writ petition, the petitioner had remitted the regular tariff in order to maintain the electricity connection.

3. While the judgment was alive, the first respondent herein, State Government of Kerala came up with an order on 21-02-2019 S.U (OLD) No. 75/2019/Tourism Date, Thiruvananthapuram, 21/02/2019 Ext.P3, withdrawing the concession/subsidy granted as per order Ext.P1. The subsidy from 31/3/2015 was stopped for the reason that the government contemplated to implement special project to encourage the capital investment in the south Malabar districts, which are comparatively backward regarding the investment, and also proposed to give tax concession to big tourism projects. As the proposal is under active consideration of the Government of Kerala, the order Ext.P1 with effect from 31-03-2015 was withdrawn.

4. The first respondent on the basis of Ext.P3 order directed the second respondent the Director of Department of Tourism to prepare and forward suitable proposal for sanctioning the electricity subsidy due to the petitioner till 31-03-2015 vide letter No.B2/336/2018/Tour, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 01-04-2019 Ext.P4.

5. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order Ext.P3 whereby benefit of concessions made available to the petitioner was taken away a