Page 125 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] UNION OF INDIA v. V.V.F. LTD. 515

requires that the benefit be withdrawn or the scheme be modified, that superven-
ing public interest would prevail over any promissory estoppel.
11.5 In the case of Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. (supra), in paragraphs 32 and
33, it has been observed and held as follows :
“32. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is by now well recognised
and well defined by a catena of decisions of this Court. Where the Govern-
ment makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by
the promisee and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his
position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the
promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of
the promisee notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise
and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required
by Article 229 of the Constitution. The rule of promissory estoppel being an
equitable doctrine has to be moulded to suit the particular situation. It is
not a hard-and-fast rule but an elastic one, the objective of which is to do
justice between the parties and to extend an equitable treatment to them.
This doctrine is a principle evolved by equity, to avoid injustice and though
commonly named promissory estoppel, it is neither in the realm of contract
nor in the realm of estoppel. For application of the doctrine of promissory
estoppel the promisee must establish that he suffered in detriment or al-
tered his position by reliance on the promise.
33. Normally, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is being applied
against the Government and defence based on executive necessity would
not be accepted by the Court. However, if it can be shown by the Govern-
ment that having regard to the facts as they have subsequently transpired,
it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it,
the court would not raise an equity in favour of the promisee and enforce
the promise against the Government. Where public interest warrants, the
principles of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked. The Government can
change the policy in public interest. However, it is well settled that taking
cue from this doctrine, the authority cannot be compelled to do something
which is not allowed by law or prohibited by law. There is no promissory
estoppel against the settied proposition of law. Doctrine of promissory es-
toppel cannot be invoked for enforcement of a promise made contrary to
law, because none can be compelled to act against the statute. Thus, the
Government or public authority cannot be compelled to make a provision
which is contrary to law.”
Thus, as held by this Court, when the public interest warrants, the principles of
promissory estoppel cannot be invoked.
It is further held that the rule of promissory estoppel being an equitable
doctrine has to be moulded to suit the particular situation. It is not a hard-and-
fast rule but an elastic one, the objective of which is to do Justice between the
parties and to extend an equitable treatment to them.
12. Now, so far as the decisions relied upon by the Learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respective original writ petitioners-respondents herein
are concerned, once it is held that the subsequent notifications/industrial policies
impugned before the respective High Court are clarificatory in nature and it does
not take away any vested rights conferred under the earlier notifica-
tions/industrial policies, none of the decisions relied upon shall be applicable to
the facts of the case on hand.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  125