2015 (5) TMI 1074 - SC - Indian Laws

Refusal of the appellants to sanction financial assistance under the Scheme of Promotion of Industries in North East (SPINE) on the ground of delay and laches - Held that - We see no weighty or cogent reason for the respondents to wait till the earlier Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 01-05-2009 by this Court to embark upon their pursuit for redress in similar terms. Their writ petitions dated 27-08-2009 also do not evince that the same were filed after the letter/notification dated 04-05-2010. In our considered opinion therefore the respondents were deliberately bidding time to seek judicial remedy in case their co-applicants under the scheme emerged successful in their adjudicative enterprise. As the initial decision conveyed by the letter dated 05-02-2007 to stop further sanction/disbursement of Grant-in-Aid under the scheme pending scrutiny of the report of the industrial units involved did eventually metamorphosise in the closure/withdrawal of the scheme there is an apparent correlation between the intervening developments conveyed from time to time eventuating in such a conclusion. The merit of the factums leading to this decision however has not been questioned or impeached. On a consideration of the totality of the aspects involved we are thus of the unhesitant view that the respondents herein in view of their deliberate laches negligence and inaction have disentitled themselves to the benefit of the adjudication in the earlier lis. In the accompanying facts and circumstances in our comprehension it would be iniquitous and repugnant as well to the public exchequer to entertain the belated claim of the respondents on the basis of the doctrine of promissory estoppel which is even otherwise inapplicable to the case in hand.

Issues Involved:

1. Refusal to sanction financial assistance under the "Scheme of Promotion of Industries in North East" (SPINE) due to delay and laches.
2. Applicability of promissory estoppel.
3. Consistency of judicial decisions regarding the same scheme.
4. Impact of delay and laches on the right to claim benefits.
5. Financial implications on the public exchequer.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Refusal to Sanction Financial Assistance under SPINE Due to Delay and Laches:
The respondents challenged the refusal of financial assistance under SPINE on the grounds of delay and laches. The Guwahati High Court initially dismissed their writ petitions, but this decision was reversed on appeal, directing the implementing authorities to process the applications for investment subsidy under SPINE. The Supreme Court noted that the respondents had delayed their challenge by over two years after the initial decision to stop disbursements was communicated via the letter dated 05-02-2007. The Court concluded that the scheme, SPINE, stood withdrawn with effect from 23-02-2007, and the respondents' claims, by implication, had not been entertained under the scheme.

2. Applicability of Promissory Estoppel:
The respondents argued that they had altered their position based on the promise of financial assistance under SPINE, invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Supreme Court referenced M/s Motilal Padampt Sugar Mills Co. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh to explain that promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine that would yield if equity so required. The Court held that there was no promise from the public functionaries to extend benefits under SPINE after its closure on 23-02-2007, and thus, promissory estoppel was inapplicable in this case.

3. Consistency of Judicial Decisions Regarding the Same Scheme:
The respondents sought parity of treatment with earlier writ petitioners who had successfully challenged the delay in disbursement of SPINE benefits. However, the Supreme Court highlighted that the earlier adjudication did not consider the letter dated 04-05-2010, which confirmed the withdrawal of SPINE effective from 23-02-2007. The Court emphasized that the respondents were aware of the closure of SPINE but chose to delay their legal challenge, thereby disentitling themselves to the benefits of the earlier judgment.

4. Impact of Delay and Laches on the Right to Claim Benefits:
The Supreme Court underscored that delay and laches must be explained with cogent, convincing, and persuasive reasons. The respondents' delay of more than two years in filing their writ petitions was deemed inexcusable. The Court found that the respondents were "fence sitters" who awaited the outcome of the earlier litigation before staking their claim, which was inconsistent with the principles of equity.

5. Financial Implications on the Public Exchequer:
The Supreme Court considered the financial implications of entertaining the respondents' belated claims. The Court noted that granting the respondents' claims would adversely impact the public exchequer and found it inequitable to entertain such delayed claims. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of promissory estoppel should not be applied in a manner that would impose undue financial burdens on the state.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order, allowing the appeals and dismissing the respondents' claims due to deliberate laches, negligence, and inaction. The Court held that the respondents were not entitled to the benefits under SPINE, which had been withdrawn effective from 23-02-2007. The appeals were allowed without any costs.

← Previous Next →