JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitioners only prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to enforce and give effect to the provisions of the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976 and to grant incentives to the Cinema House of the petitioners. The case of the writ petitioners, in short, is that they carry out the business of exhibiting cinematographic films at the Rajendra Cinema in the village of Lowhati under Rajarhat Police Station in the district of 24-Parganas. The Rajendra Cinema was temporary in nature without any permanent structure. In 1976 a scheme known as 'West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976 was introduced by the Government of West Bengal to encourage the growth of new cinemas as well as of film production industry in the State and the said Scheme came into force w.e.f. 1st April, 1976. A copy of the Scheme was forwarded to the petitioners by the Block Development Officer, Rajarhat, sometime in August, 1976. The petitioners had applied for permission for permanent construction in May, 1972 but they did not have financial stability to go on for the construction and as such they were very much encourage on receiving the said Scheme. The District Magistrate, respondent No.3, granted permission by an order dated 29th March, 1977 for construction of a permanent cinema house. According to para 4 or the said Scheme some incentives have been provided and one such is the granting of subsidy to the owner of every eligible cinema house to the extent indicated there. The condition of grant if that the owner of the eligible cinema house must execute a written agreement with the State Government in terms of the Scheme. The "eligible cinema house" has been defined in the said Scheme meaning a permanent cinema house with valid licence under Rule 6 of the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation or Public Exhibition) Rules, 1956 and the petitioners were granted permission for construction on 29th March, 1977 as per direction of the District Magistrate indicated above. After completion of the construction work the petitioners made application for grant of licence under the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation of Public Exhibition) Rules, 1956 and such licence was granted on 10th September, 1979 and the petitioners started exhibiting cinematographic films from 12th September, 1979. After completion of the construction work the petitioners made application for grant of licence under the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation of Public Exhibition) Rules, 1956 and such licence was granted on 10th September, 1979 and the petitioners started exhibiting cinematographic films from 12th September, 1979. When the Cinema House was under construction the petitioners wrote on 7th June, 1978 to the District Magistrate for necessary instructions and particulars regarding the registration of the said Cinema House under the said Scheme to avail the facility of the subsidy. The said letter was finally received by the Finance Department. The petitioners again wrote to the District Magistrate, respondent No.3, on 12th May, 1979 followed by another letter on 16th October, 1979, the last one was also addressed to the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of the Finance Department as well but the petitioners did not receive any reply. By a Notification the petitioners came to know on or about 6th November, 1979 that the respondent No.2 has been appointed as the Administrator under the said Scheme. The further case of the petitioners is that the State Government published a booklet containing informations about the West Bengal Cinema Development Scheme, 1976 and by Notification dated 21st May, 1976 it was stated chat the Administrator for the said Scheme would be noticed by the Information and Public Relations Department and to the said department the petitioners wrote a letter on 6th November, 1979 for information. The petitioners made an application for registration of their Cinema House in Form No.1 before the respondent No. 1 for obtaining registration certificate in Form No. II. Inspite of no response from any quarter the petitioners went on to complete the structure of the Cinema House with a view of getting incentives under the laid Scheme. The petitioners obtained loans as well. The petitioners' contention is that the W.B. Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976 is a Government Scheme which gave incentives to the people including the petitioners to construct Cinema House but thereafter not entertaining the application of the petitioners and neglecting to perform the statutory duty has violated Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Hence the writ petition. 2. The respondent No.1 in an Affidavit-in-Opposition stated that the petitioners applied for construction of a permanent Cinema House on 29th May, 1972 and not after the introduction of the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976. Hence the writ petition. 2. The respondent No.1 in an Affidavit-in-Opposition stated that the petitioners applied for construction of a permanent Cinema House on 29th May, 1972 and not after the introduction of the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976. Under Rule 4(i) of the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation of Public Exhibition) Rules, 1976 any person desirous of building a cinema house may apply to the District Magistrate with full particulars for approval of the proposed site and plan of building but the petitioners did not submit the building plan. It is stated that the District Magistrate by a letter dated 15th Match, 1975 i.e. before the Scheme came into force approved the site but as the building plan was not submitted they were asked to submit the same. On receiving the building plan the District Magistrate by letter dated 29th March, 1977 simply asked the petitioners to complete the construction and as such the cinema hall in question was not an "eligible cinema hall" within the said Scheme of 1976. An eligible cinema house according to the said Scheme was required to submit half-yearly statement in Form No. III with particulars and duly certified by the Certifying authority and then to enter an agreement with the State Government. After the agreement the owner of the eligible cinema house was required to submit every six-month to the Administrator in Form IV the required particulars for the grant of incentives and this was not fulfilled by the petitioners. It is further stated that to be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme an eligible cinema house was to reserve from its aggregated show time per year for exhibition of eligible films. An eligible film has been described by the order of the State Government stated in paragraph 8 of the said Affidavit. It is finally contended in the Affidavit that the cinema hall was not an eligible one and the owner did not abide by the conditions prescribed for the purpose and the petitioners submitted uncalled for applications not in proper form to wrong authorities and did not submit six-monthly statements. The most important contention of the Affidavit is that the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976 was in force from 1st April, 1976 to 31st March, 1981 and was rescinded by the State Government on 5th May, 1980 and as such the Scheme is a dead one now. 3. The most important contention of the Affidavit is that the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976 was in force from 1st April, 1976 to 31st March, 1981 and was rescinded by the State Government on 5th May, 1980 and as such the Scheme is a dead one now. 3. The respondent No.2 has also filed a separate Affidavit-in-Opposition. It is stated that the procedure for implementation of the said Scheme was laid down in G.O. dated 21st May, 1976 and the procedure was summarised in the Affidavit. The rest of the Affidavit is the repetition of what has already been stated in the Affidavit of respondent No.1. The Resolution of 28th May, 1980 issued by the Finance Department (Taxation) is enclosed with the Affidavit by which the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976 was withdrawn. 4. I find in the record an Affidavit-in-Opposition on behalf of the respondent No.5, the Deputy Secretary (Films), Information and Cultural Affairs, but I could not trace out whether the said Deputy Secretary is made a party-respondent nor I do find anything substantial in the said Affidavit and it does not require any consideration. 5. The petitioners in an Affidavit-in-Reply dealt with the points raised in the Affidavit-in-Opposition and reiterated what they have said in the writ application. They have also enclosed certain annexures with their Reply which I may discuss afterwards, if necessary. 6. Mr. Basu, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that it was factually incorrect that the permission for construction of Rajendra Cinema House was granted on 15th March, 1975. In fact the proposed site land for the Cinema House was selected by the District Magistrate in March, 1975 but the permission for construction was granted by Memo dated 29th March, 1977 and in this way the Cinema House is an eligible cinema, within the meaning of Clause 3(c) of the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976. The learned Advocate also contradicted the allegation regarding non-exhibition of "eligible films" in the said Cinema House and submitted that no enquiry to this effect was ever made by the authorities and the plea is malafide. It is the contention of Mr. Basu that required number of eligible films during the relevant period was exhibited. He also contradicted the allegation that the petitioners did not apply to the proper authority for obtaining registration. It is the contention of Mr. Basu that required number of eligible films during the relevant period was exhibited. He also contradicted the allegation that the petitioners did not apply to the proper authority for obtaining registration. His contention is that the application for registration was duly made before the Administrator who was the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, West Bengal of 7th November, 1979 in Form I and this was done after the completion of construction of the permanent cinema house. According to the Government Order of 21st May, 1976 Form I is the proforma for making application for registration and Form IV indicates that the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, West Bengal, is the Administrator. 7. Mr. Basu further argued that the legal plea of the respondents relating to the rescission of the Scheme with effect from 5th May, 1980 did not destroy the right of the petitioners to get subsidy since such right accrued from 12th September, 1979 when exhibition of films according to Clause 4(a) of the Scheme was implemented by exhibition of films. The exhibition of film with effect from 12th September, 1979 was intimated to the District Magistrate as is evident from Annexures 'G' and 'I' of the writ petition. It is the further submission of the learned Advocate that those eligible cinema house which qualify for subsidy during the period of the Scheme continue to have the right to receive subsidy for three years as per Clause 4(a) of the said Scheme. Any contrary. interpretation is simply absurd and tentamounts to promissory estoppel. His further submission was that once the petitioners did qualify for getting subsidy when the said Scheme was in force, then the petitioners accrued right cannot be destroyed either by expressed words or by necessary intendment. Whatever had happened, happened due to the laches of the authorities. The learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that the respondents might be restrained from demanding and/or collecting any Show Tax and Amusement Tax from be petitioners for three years. In support of his contention Mr. Basu cited some decisions on the principle of promissory estoppel: (1) M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. ( AIR 1979 SC 621 ); and (2) The Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ( AIR 1983 S.C. 848 ). In support of his contention Mr. Basu cited some decisions on the principle of promissory estoppel: (1) M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. ( AIR 1979 SC 621 ); and (2) The Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ( AIR 1983 S.C. 848 ). There is no Indo-Afgan Agencies case in (3) AIR 1969 SC 718 as referred to by the learned Advocate. He has also referred to the two an reported decisions; one by Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta in C.R. No. 4612(W) of 1980 (4) Jitendra Kumar Khan and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. delivered on 18th September, 1984 (and not 18th September, 1974) and another by Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee in C.O. No. 4818 (W) of 1986 (5) Shyamsunder Gorai and Anr. v. State of West Bengal delivered on 5th July, 1989. 8. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the State-respondents, elaborated the contentions made in the Affidavits-in-Opposition and submitted that after the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976 has been dropped the question of providing any incentive under the said Scheme does not arise. 9. I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the parties. It is specifically stated by the respondents that the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976 was effective on and from 1st April, 1976 and remained in force upto 31st March, 1981 only and thereafter was rescinded by the State Government and as such the said Scheme is a dead Scheme now and cannot be acted upon. It appears from Annexure ‘A' to the writ petition that upon the petitioners application dated 29th May, 1972 the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas, by Memo dated 29th March, 1977 permitted the construction of a permanent Cinema House on terms on Plot Nos. 3410 and 3411, Mouza Bisnupur under the Police Station Rajarhat in 24-Parganas. It must be borne in mind that the petitioners made application in 1972 and the said Scheme came into existence in April, 1976. The authorities granted the licence under Rule 6(2) of the W.B. Cinemas (Regulation of Public Exhibition) Rules, 1956 by Memo dated 10th September, 1979. 3410 and 3411, Mouza Bisnupur under the Police Station Rajarhat in 24-Parganas. It must be borne in mind that the petitioners made application in 1972 and the said Scheme came into existence in April, 1976. The authorities granted the licence under Rule 6(2) of the W.B. Cinemas (Regulation of Public Exhibition) Rules, 1956 by Memo dated 10th September, 1979. On 7th June, 1978 the petitioners made representation to the District Magistrate that they were starting the construction of permanent Cinema House from 14th June, 1978 on the basis of the permission granted by the District Magistrate on 29th March, 1977. In this letter the petitioners for the first time referred to the W.B. Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976 and mentioned that, they were agreeable to abide all the rules and conditions contained therein and also asked for advice to register Rajendra Cinema with the Administrator to be able to get the facility of said Scheme. The District Magistrate by a Memo dated 24th January, 1979 forwarded the application of the petitioners to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal for necessary instructions. The petitioners, too, wrote to the Secretary, Finance Department (Taxation Branch), referring to the Memo written by the District Magistrate on 24th January, 1979 and seeking advice. Thereafter I find a number of letters were written by the petitioners to the Secretary of the department and the District Magistrate enquiring about the position of granting permission under the said Scheme but they got no response. 10. Let me see some decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners. The case of M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Ltd. V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.(Supra), deals with the principle of promissory estoppel and clarifies whether the State is bound and if so to what extent it is bound by the principle of promissory estoppel. 10. Let me see some decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners. The case of M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Ltd. V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.(Supra), deals with the principle of promissory estoppel and clarifies whether the State is bound and if so to what extent it is bound by the principle of promissory estoppel. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court stated as under : - "The true principle of promissory estoppel seems to be that whether one party has by his words or conduct make to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party the promise would be binding on the party making it and be would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be unequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties, and this would be so irrespective of whether there is any pre-existing relationship between the parties or not. The doctrine of promissory estoppel need not be inhabituated by the same limitation as estoppel in the strict sense of the term." The decision in the case of the Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), is on the line of the previous one wherein the Supreme Court said that the principle of promissory estoppel would estop the Corporation from backing out of its obligation and a writ of mandamus could be issued directing the Corporation to perform statutory duty. In the first mentioned case the principle of promissory estoppel was laid out and in the latter the question of performing statutory duty arose under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Now I take up the two unreported decisions of this Hon'ble Court. The first one is the case of Jitendra Kumar Khan and Ano. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (Supra). Now I take up the two unreported decisions of this Hon'ble Court. The first one is the case of Jitendra Kumar Khan and Ano. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (Supra). Here the, writ petition was disposed of in favour of the petitioners but it is crystal clear from the certified copy of the Judgment (vide p. 10) that it was not brought to the notice of A.K. Sengupta, J. that the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976 remained in existence till 31st March, 1981 and thereafter rescinded by the State Government. This is apparent from the following sentence of the Judgment: "If the validity of the scheme expires, the petitioners will not be able to get the benefit of the said incentives." In fact, in 1984 (not in 1974) when the Judgment was delivered the validity of the said Scheme had already been expired. This matter was disposed of ex-parte and as such this important fact was not brought to the notice of His Lordship. In the case of Shyamsundar Garai and Ano. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (Supra), B.P. Banerjee, J. following the aforesaid decision of A.K. Sengupta, J. allowed the writ application and very correctly observed therein that "If any cinema had been constructed on being induced by the said scheme and fulfilled the terms and conditions laid down under the scheme, the State Government would not be allowed to back track from it on any technical pleas or pretext." In this case the entire emphasis of the petitioners is that being encouraged by the W.B. Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976 the petitioners constructed the cinema in question which is factually wrong. 11. I am duty bound to accept the verdict of the two Hon'ble Judges given in two different matters relating to the subject in question which is also the subject matter of this writ petition and also the principle of promissory estoppel as laid down by the Supreme Court provided the facts are similar in this writ petition. 12. 11. I am duty bound to accept the verdict of the two Hon'ble Judges given in two different matters relating to the subject in question which is also the subject matter of this writ petition and also the principle of promissory estoppel as laid down by the Supreme Court provided the facts are similar in this writ petition. 12. It is an admitted position that the application seeking permission for the construction of a permanent Cinema House was submitted to the District Magistrate as far back as on 29th May, 1972 i.e. much after the said Scheme came into existance in 1976; and on the basis of the said application submitted much before 1976 i.e. on 29th May, 1972 the District Magistrate granted permission to the petitioners for the construction of a permanent Cinema House by his Memo of 29th March, 1977. The District Magistrate approved the site on 15th March, 1975, before the said Scheme came into force, on the basis of the application of 1972 but as the building plan was not submitted the construction permission could not be given at that 'stage and had to be delayed till March, 1977. So it shall be quite incorrect to say that the petitioners took initiative for the construction of a permanent Cinema House on the basis of the W.B. Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976. When in 1972 they made application for the construction there was no indication at all that ever such a Scheme would come into force which would give incentive for the construction of a permanent Cinema House. It appears that the plea of incentives under the said Scheme is not based on facts and I cannot reconcile myself with the submissions made by Mr. Basu, the learned Advocate for the petitioners. Inspite of the fact that in the two writ petitions Their Lordships Mr. Justice A.K. Sengupta and Mr. Justice B.P. Banerjee have given the verdict in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the said Scheme but hard facts cannot be overlooked while granting relief in this case. No question of promissory estoppel arises here and the elements contained in the two unreported judgments of this Hon'ble Court are totally missing from the instant writ petition. Justice B.P. Banerjee have given the verdict in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the said Scheme but hard facts cannot be overlooked while granting relief in this case. No question of promissory estoppel arises here and the elements contained in the two unreported judgments of this Hon'ble Court are totally missing from the instant writ petition. No intimation of any kind was forwarded by the Block Development Officer, Rajarhat, to the petitioners nor they acquired any right in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed. Basic facts cannot be overlooked while granting relief. I could not follow which I ought to have done in normal course, the verdicts of my two esteemed learned Brothers because of the new ingredient in this case which was totally absent in the two aforementioned cases. I must make it clear that I am not satisfied that the petitioners made application on the basis of the said W.B. Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976 for incentives from the Government and I am convinced that when they made application in 1972 they could not dream of such a Scheme. 13. In the circumstances the Rule stands discharged without costs. Let xerox copy of the order be made available to the parties on usual undertaking and upon compliance of necessary formalities.