M/S. ESTER INDUSTRIES LTD. versus U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

M/S. ESTER INDUSTRIES LTD. versus U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

So long as the State Government's policy direction is consistent with the provisions of the Act and the Board's tariff policy, the Board may accept or reject it; the Court cannot direct the Board to implement such directions under Article 226; promissory estoppel is not applicable in cases with an executed contract between parties.

Parties
Appellant: M/S. ESTER INDUSTRIES LTD.; Respondent: U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Order on Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Tariff Determination, State Policy Directives, Promissory Estoppel, Judicial Review Under Article 226
Electricity Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Tariff Determination State Policy Directives Promissory Estoppel Judicial Review Under Article 226

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S. ESTER INDUSTRIES LTD.

Appellant

U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Order on Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the Electricity Board automatically bound by State Government policy directions under Section 78A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948?
  2. 2 Does promissory estoppel apply when there exists a contract between the Electricity Board and the consumer?
  3. 3 Can the Court compel the Board to implement State Government directions under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Ratio Decidendi

So long as the State Government's policy direction is consistent with the provisions of the Act and the Board's tariff policy, the Board may accept or reject it; the Court cannot direct the Board to implement such directions under Article 226; promissory estoppel is not applicable in cases with an executed contract between parties.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed.

Orders

  • The special leave petition is dismissed.