Page 107 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] UNION OF INDIA v. V.V.F. LTD. 497

State of Rajasthan v. Mahaveer Oil Industries — (1999) 4 SCC 357 — Relied on ................ [Paras 8.7, 11.4]
T.N. Electricity Board v. Status Spg. Mills Ltd. — (2008) 7 SCC 353 — Relied on ....................... [Para 13.3]
Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. — 1985 (22) E.L.T. 306 (S.C.)
— Referred ................................................................................................................................... [Para 9.2.4]
Union of India v. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd. — 2009 (14) S.T.R. 593 (S.C.)
— Relied on ................................................................................................................................... [Para 13.2]
Zile Singh v. State of Haryana — (2004) 8 SCC 1 — Relied on ........................................................ [Para 13.4]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri B. Krishna Prasad, Ms. Shweta Garg,
Himanshu Shekhar, AOR’s, Ashish Gopal Garg and
Rakesh Garg, Advocates, for the Petitioners.
S/Shri E.C. Agrawala, Ramendra Lal Auddy, Rajan
Narain, V.K. Sidharthan, S.S. Shroff, M/s. K.J. John
and Co., Mrs. Bina Gupta, Ms. Diksha Rai, K.V.
Mohan, Satya Mitra, Partha Sil, Pawanshree
Agrawal, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Shriram P. Pingle,
Shekhar Prit Jha, B. Krishna Prasad, Praveen Kumar,
M/s. Khaitan & Co., Rahul Narayan, M/s. Legal
Options, Kunal Chatterji, R. Parthasarathy, Vishal
Gupta, Rana Ranjit Singh, Gopal Singh, Narendra
Kumar, AOR's, Shashwat Goel, Nikhil Singhvi, Ms.
Sonia Dube, Shatadru Chakraborty, Kanchan Yadav,
Anurag Singh, Sunil Murarka, Ms. Maitrayee
Banerjee, Pravar Veer Misra, Raghvendra Kumar,
Ms. Diksha Rai Goswami and Parthiv K. Goswami,
Advocates, for the Respondents.
[Judgment per : M.R. Shah, J.]. - Leave granted in all the special leave
petitions.
Civil Appeals @ SLP © Nos. 28194-28201 of 2010
2. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals
and as such arise out of the impugned common judgment and order dated 10-3-
2010 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in respective Special
Civil Application Nos. 5909/2008, 6300/2008, 6298/2008, 6299/2008, 5907/2008,
8468/2008, 6334/2008 and 6562/2008, all these appeals are being decided and
disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 10-3-2010 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ah-
medabad in respective Special Civil Application Nos. 5909/2008, 6300/2008,
6298/2008, 6299/2008, 5907/2008, 8468/2008, 6334/2008 and 6562/2008, by
which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the aforesaid writ peti-
tions preferred by the respondents herein - original writ petitioners and by which
the High Court has held that the impugned policy of withdrawal of the bene-
fit/incentive to the original writ petitioners is retrospective and not retroactive
and quashed and set aside the Notification 16/2008, dated 27-3-2008, on the
ground that bar of promissory estoppel would operate, the Union of India has
preferred the present appeals.
3. The facts leading to the present appeals and the List of Dates &
Events in nutshell are as under :
Kutch District in the State of Gujarat was struck by a devastating earth-
quake on 26-1-2001 which destroyed the existing infrastructure in that District,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  107