M/S S.V.A. STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS LTD. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2014] 2 S.C.R. 336 · Decided: 06-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014) 2 S.C.R. 336 
MIS S.V.A. STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS LTD. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10103-10106 of 2010) 
FEBRUARY 06, 2014 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Administrative law: Policy decision - State of Kera/a 
declared a policy to give uninterrupted 100% electricity supply 
C 
at exempted rate for a period of 5 years to newly set up 
manufacturing units - Pursuant to the said policy, the 
appellants set up their manufacturing units in the State -
However, there were frequent power cuts which adversely 
affected these units - Respondent-State passed order 
o whereby it granted extension of period of assured power 
supply to the new units by number of days during which supply 
of electricity to them was cut to the extent of 50% or more -
Challenged on the ground that whenever there was power cut, 
even if the cut was 50% or less, the said period should have 
E 
been added to the period of 5 years, for the reason that for 
proper functioning of the manufacturing units, uninterrupted 
100% supply of electricity is a sine qua non - Held: Framing 
such policies and doing the needful for its implementation are 
administrative functions of the State and therefore, normally 
F 
interference with its policies is not called for - But looking at 
the peculiar facts of the case, where an assurance was given 
for uninterrupted supply of electricity, respondent-State .ought 
to have made necessary arrangements to provide 100% 
uninterrupted supply of electricity for 5 years to the new units 
G - Without proper appreciation of all the relevant factors, the 
State should not give any assurance, not only because that 
would be in violation of the principles of promissory estoppe/ 
but it would be unfair and immoral on the part of the State not 
to act as per its promise - The benefit extended by the 
H 
336 
M/S S.V.A. STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS v. STATE OF 337 
KERALA 
respondent State is not sufficient - The respondent-State 
A 
ought to have extended the period even for the days when 
supply of electricity was more than 50% but not 100% as 
assured - Therefore, the respondents are directed to give the 
said benefit by extending the period of incentive - Doctrine 
of promissory estoppel - Electricity Act, 1910 - s.228. 
B 
The respondent-State in order to encourage and 
invite businessmen to set up their manufacturing units 
in the State of Kerala declared a policy to give continuous 
electricity supply at a particular rate to certain 
C 
manufacturing units. Pursuant thereto, the respondent-
State issued order dated 27 .5.1990 whereby it assured 
the new manufacturing units exemption from power cut 
for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement 
of commercial production. Such new units were also 
given certain exemption from payment of electricity duty 
D 
for a period of 5 years. 
Pursuant to the said policy, the appellants set up 
their manufacturing units in the respondent-State. On 
6.2.1992, further order for exemption to new units for 5 
E 
years from payment of enhanced power tariff on certain 
condition was passed. However, there were frequent 
power cuts which adversely affected these units. The 
respondent-State passed order on 26.10.1999, whereby 
it granted extension of period of assured power supply 
F 
to the new units who were adversely affected because 
of power cut. Under the said order it was decided and 
declared to extend the benefit which had been given 
under G.O. dated 25.5.1990 and 6.2.1992 to the new units 
by number of days during which supply of electricity to 
G 
them had been cut to the extent of 50% or more. The 
respondent-State also decided to reimburse the Board 
with the amount of benefit which was given to the new 
units on account of power cut beyond 50%. 
A 
B 
338 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 
The appellants filed writ petitions on the ground that 
the benefits assured were not given. The High Court 
dismissed the writ petitions. The instant appeals were 
filed challenging the order of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that the appellants had 
set up their new units in the State of Kerala only upon 
knowing the policy with regard to uninterrupted m>wer 
supply and that too at the same tariff for a period of 5 
C years from the date of commercial production. In the 
instant case, no case was made out by the respondent-
State that the appellants had committed any breach or 
were no

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.