It was held that “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. Without proper appreciation
of all the relevant factors, the State should not give any assurance, not only because that would be in violation of the principles of promissory estoppel but it would be unfair and immoral on the part of the State not to act as per its promise.”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M/s S.V.A. Steel Re-rolling Mills Ltd. etc. etc. v. State of Kerala & Ors. etc. etc.
6th February, 2014,
[Civil Appeal Nos. 10103-10106 of 2010],
An assurance was given to the appellants and similarly situated persons that they would be given 100% electricity supply for five years, the respondents 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.
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.
Direct the respondents to calculate the period during which 100% electricity supply was not given to the appellants and extend the 2 Page 21 period of incentive accordingly. The calculation shall be made and consequential orders shall be passed within two months from today.