Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1277 - SC - Indian LawsProblem with regard to supply of electricity - change in policy - Held that:- As before laying down any policy which would give benefits to its subjects, the State must think about pros and cons of the policy and its capacity to give the benefits because it would be in violation of the principles of promissory estoppel, besides being unfair and immoral on the part of the State not to act as per its promise. In the instant case, the respondent State was conscious about the fact that there was a problem with regard to supply of electricity in the State of Kerala and possibly for that reason industries which depended much upon electricity as a source of power were not inclined to establish new industries in the State of Kerala. In view of the incentives and assurances given to the appellants along with others, who were desirous of setting up new industries, the appellants set up their new units which were much dependent upon continuous supply of electricity. One of the appellants is a Steel Re-rolling Mill. In steel industry, when the industry is concerned with making of steel or re-rolling of steel, it requires lot of power and energy, and electricity being one of the important sources of power, the appellant was much dependent on continuous supply of electricity, which had been assured to it by the respondent State. If an assurance was given to the appellants and similarly situated persons that they would be given 100% electricity supply for five years, the respondents can not riggle out of their liability by making a policy to the effect that the benefit by way of incentive would be extended only if the electricity supply was reduced to less than 50% on a particular day. For the aforestated reasons, in our opinion, the respondent-State was not wholly fair when it extended benefit to the appellants only for the period during which electricity supply was reduced to less than 50% on certain days. We, therefore, hold that the benefit extended by the respondent State is not sufficient. The respondent-State ought to have extended the period even for the days when supply of electricity was more than 50% but not 100% as assured under G.O. dated 21.5.1990 and 6.2.1992. We, therefore, direct the respondents to give the said benefit by extending the period of incentive. We, therefore, allow the appeals by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and direct the respondents to calculate the period during which 100% electricity supply was not given to the appellants and extend the period of incentive accordingly.
|