PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. versus M/SADARSH TEXTILES & ANR.

PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. versus M/SADARSH TEXTILES & ANR.

The State Government’s policy and subsidy decisions are final and binding; the 14.6.2006 policy never intended to extend subsidy to HV-2 consumers, and it is not open to the Commission to direct or provide for subsidy for HV-2 consumers. Promissory estoppel is not attracted, as no assurance was given by the State Government to HV-2 consumers.

Parties
Appellant: Paschimanchal Vidyutvitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.; Respondent: M/s Adarsh Textiles & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, C.m.w.p. No. 8765 of 2008
Outcome
Appeals arising from SLP (C) Nos. 29322/2010, 9869/2008, 29320/2010, and 29324/2010 allowed; appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 30528/2009 dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.
Legal Topics
Electricity Tariff, Subsidy Policy, Promissory Estoppel, Regulatory Commission Power, State Government Prerogative
Electricity Law Administrative Law Electricity Tariff Subsidy Policy Promissory Estoppel Regulatory Commission Power State Government Prerogative

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paschimanchal Vidyutvitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

Appellant

M/s Adarsh Textiles & Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, C.m.w.p. No. 8765 of 2008

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State Government’s policy decision dated 14.6.2006 regarding electricity subsidy could be applied to HV-2 category consumers by the Electricity Regulatory Commission
  2. 2 Whether the principle of promissory estoppel is attracted against the State Government to extend electricity subsidy to HV-2 category consumers

Ratio Decidendi

The State Government’s policy and subsidy decisions are final and binding; the 14.6.2006 policy never intended to extend subsidy to HV-2 consumers, and it is not open to the Commission to direct or provide for subsidy for HV-2 consumers. Promissory estoppel is not attracted, as no assurance was given by the State Government to HV-2 consumers.

Court Disposition

Appeals arising from SLP (C) Nos. 29322/2010, 9869/2008, 29320/2010, and 29324/2010 allowed; appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 30528/2009 dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • The benefit of Government order dated 14.6.2006 is not extended to HV-2 consumers.
  • Demand raised in Vikas Textiles' case for the period from April 2007 to December 2007 is appropriate.