In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or direction. 2. The case of the petitioner is that they carry on business of printing. Government of Assam issued notice inviting tenders for printing of bal lot papers for 1992 Panchayat election. Pursuant to the said notice inviting tenders, petitioners along with others submitted their tenders quoting different prices. Thereafter, the Government decided to distribute the printing jobs to various presses at a negotiated price of 96 paise per ballot paper. As per the work order the printing work had to be completed within a period of 10 days. The petitioners undertook the job of printing ballot papers and completed the same within the stipulated period. As the time was short, petitioners hurriedly completed the work and then submitted their bills. Some amounts of the bill were also paid. Thereafter, the respondents stopped payment and ultimately refused to pay. A WT message was whereby the rate was reduced to 50 paise per ballot paper at which rate some printers were agreeable to undertake the job and accordingly, the balance amounts of the bills were not paid. Situated thus petitioners submitted representations. Thereafter the Government revised the rate and fixed at 60 paise per ballot paper and was inclined to pay bills at that rate:. Bering aggrieved the petitioner No. 1 approached this Court by filing a writ petition (Civil Rule No. 1371 of 1993) and this Court disposed of the petition with an observation that the petitioner might prefer a representation before the respondent No. 1 within a period of 15 days from the date of the order and the respondent No. 1 was directed to dispose of the said representation after hearing the petitioner and other similarly aggrieved persons expeditiously. Pursuant to the said order the respondent disposed of the matter and refused to change the rate fixed earlier i.e. 60 paise per ballot paper. Hence the present petition. 3. I have heard Mr. AK Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. DP Chaliha, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam. 4. Mr. Pursuant to the said order the respondent disposed of the matter and refused to change the rate fixed earlier i.e. 60 paise per ballot paper. Hence the present petition. 3. I have heard Mr. AK Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. DP Chaliha, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam. 4. Mr. Phukan submits that the authority after considering all aspects of the matter placed order for printing ballot papers at the rate of 96 paise per ballot paper and directed to-complete the job within a period of 10 days Pursuant to this the petitioners printed the ballot papers withia4ime and submitted their bills to the -authorities concerned. A portion of the billed amounts was also paid without any objection whatsoever, But later when some printers offered to do the job. at a lower rate the Government decided to reduce the rate to 5 0 paise per ballot paper which was later on increased to 6.0 paise per ballot paper. When the Government assured to pay 96 paise per ballot paper the petitioners undertook the job. Now the respondents cannot go back from their own assurance.; They are bound by estoppel. 5. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. Record has also not been produced. Today also this Court granted time to learned Senior Government Advocate to produce the record. Admittedly record is available at Guwahati. But the learned-Government Advocate could not produce-the same. It is now well settled that where one party has by his word or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise or representation which is intended to create legal relations or affect 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 or representation is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise or representation would be binding on the party making it and it would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties. However, the exception is that if the promise is given contrary to the public policy, only in that case the authority of the Government may go back from its own promise. However, the exception is that if the promise is given contrary to the public policy, only in that case the authority of the Government may go back from its own promise. In the instant case, after due consideration the authority came to conclusion that 96 paise would be the right rate for printing of each ballot paper and on that basis the authority placed orders for doing the job and, therefore, the authority is bound by its assurance and cannot go back from it. 6. In view of the above, in my opinion, the authority is bound to pay the price at which the offer was accepted and the printing work was carried out. It goes without saying that the petitioners must have incurred additional expenses in completing the work within such a short period and after completion of the work if the price is reduced it would be unreasonable. Therefore, I allow the petition directing the respondents to make payment at the rate of 96 paise per ballot paper as per work orders as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order after adjustment of the amounts which have already been paid.