CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE 1st petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of production of power, and the second petitioner is a share holder of the first petitioner-Company. They have sought for a direction to the 1st respondent-Karnataka Power Transmission corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the KPTCL') to get a letter of credit and also to open and operationalise the Escrow Account and for a further direction to the State of Karnataka to execute a State support Agreement, in terms of the promises held out by them to the petitioner's Company and to direct the respondents to extend the effective date of the Power Purchase Agreement dated 15-12- 1997 in these petitions. ( 2 ) IN order to consider the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to state a few facts which are as follows. The State of Karnataka initiated measures to establish Power Projects promoted by the private sector to meet the acute power shortage in the State as power sector was liberalised by the Government of India since 1992. The State Government pursuant to its policy decision invited global bids from interested parties to set up Barge Mounted Power plants by its notification published in the daily newspaper dated 8-12-1995. Pursuant to the said notification several bids were received by the kptcl to set up barge mounted power plants. One such bid was submitted by the promoter of the petitioner's Company on 5-1-1996. The bid of the petitioner's Company was accepted and ultimately the State government issued a Government order authorising the petitioner's company to set up 220 MW Barge Mounted Power Plant at Tanir Bhavi, mangalore, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-B to the petitions. The notification dated 8-12-1995 specifically stipulates that the Karnataka electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the KEB') will purchase the entire energy output of the plant. Pursuant to the acceptance of the bid of petitioner's Company the Power Purchase Agreement (hereinafter referred to as 'the PPA') which is statutorily required to be executed was finalised between the petitioner and the KEB and the same was initiated by both the parties on 5-11-1996. This PPA included the clause regarding opening and operationalisation of the Escrow Account by the KEB and the letter of the Bankers of the KEB to issue letter committing to issue a letter of credit. This PPA included the clause regarding opening and operationalisation of the Escrow Account by the KEB and the letter of the Bankers of the KEB to issue letter committing to issue a letter of credit. The said PPA was then sent to the state Government for approval. The State Government by its order dated 16-7-1997 approved the PPA, the copy of which is produced as annexure-C. As there were some minor mistakes in the PPA, a supplementary agreement dated 29-5-1999 was entered into between the petitioner's company and the KEB. A copy of the said agreement is produced as Annexure-E. ( 3 ) THE financial institutions headed by the IDBI sent letters to authorise electricity Boards regarding financing of Independent Power projects (IPPs) along with draft model Escrow agreement. The said letter was examined by the Power Committee constituted by the Government of India consisting of senior officials of the Reserve Bank of India, financial institutions and others including State Governments. Thereafter, the State Government informed the KEB that it should adopt the model Escrow Agreement as required by the IDBI for arriving at the escrow Agreement for IPPs. In furtherance of this, the State Government wrote a letter dated 17-8-1999 to the Chairman of the KEB directing them to give Escrow cover on 'first come first serve' basis. The letter further states that the Project must have debts sanctioned by the financial institutions to enable them to come in the queue and the KEB should examine whether modification is required in the PPA to implement the model agreement and incorporate the changes accordingly. The copy of the said letter is produced as Annexure-F. Pursuant to this direction issued by the State Government the KEB insisted upon the supplementary agreement being entered into between the petitioner and keb in which the Escrow clause modified and accordingly supplementary agreement dated 30-3-1999 came into existence. Clause 6 of the supplementary agreement provides as under. "it is agreed between the parties that the changes made in this supplementary Agreement shall be treated as part and parcel of the Power Purchase Agreement dated 15-12-1997 and the said power agreement in all other respects stands unaltered". ( 4 ) ONE of the terms of the PPA imposes an obligation upon the petitioner to furnish a Bank guarantee in favour of the KEB and accordingly the petitioner obtained a Bank guarantee for Rs. ( 4 ) ONE of the terms of the PPA imposes an obligation upon the petitioner to furnish a Bank guarantee in favour of the KEB and accordingly the petitioner obtained a Bank guarantee for Rs. 10 crores in favour of the KEB. Thereafter the State Government executed a guarantee agreement dated 3-4-1999 in favour of the petitioner guaranteeing payment obligations of the KEB, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-J. The keb thereafter has written letter to the IDBI reiterating its commitment to provide Escrow Cover as provided in the PPA of the Project and further stated that the Draft Escrow Agreement is under finalisation in consultation with the IDBI and CRISIL. Again the KEB in its letter dated 14-9-1999 written to IDBI has stated that the IDBI has already sent the model agreement and that the said Escrow Agreement is ready to be signed and that the agreement cannot be signed till the election process is over and therefore sought for extension regarding the validity of the letters of intent. A copy of the said letter was endorsed to the petitioner. ( 5 ) IN furtherance of the above said facts and as required by the financial institutions, the KEB entered into an Escrow and Disbursement agreement dated 1-10-1999. Thereafter, the KEB entered into a security and Hypothecation Agreement dated 26-10-1999 with the petitioner's company under which the KEB created and granted charge of the Escrow Account in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance to the above said agreement the KEB in order to assess the Escrow arrangement for power Projects in Karnataka sought the services of CRISIL advisory Services. It is stated in the petition that the CRISIL has assessed the Escrowable Capacity of KEB at 1500 MW. ( 6 ) IT is averred in the petition that in furtherance of the promise held by the KEB as per the documents referred to above, the petitioner's company has gone ahead with the implementation of the Project hoping the respondents would open the Letter of Credit and Escrow Account and execute the State Support Agreement. ( 6 ) IT is averred in the petition that in furtherance of the promise held by the KEB as per the documents referred to above, the petitioner's company has gone ahead with the implementation of the Project hoping the respondents would open the Letter of Credit and Escrow Account and execute the State Support Agreement. ( 7 ) IT is stated by the petitioner's Company that all the progress made by the petitioner's Company is at the consent and concurrence of the keb and in fact the KEB insisted upon and encouraged the petitioner's company to implement the Project in a right earnest and to show substantial progress. From the correspondence exchanged between the parties it is seen that the "effective date" is being extended from time to time on the basis of the progress in the implementation of the Project. The petitioner has already invested a sum of Rs. 186 crores for the implementation of the Project apart from a sum of Rs. 18 crores towards Bank guarantee. ( 8 ) IN view of the acceptance of the bid of the petitioner's Company and having entered into agreements referred to above with the petitioner's company to set up a Barge Mounted Power Plant, the KEB called for a tender to allocate the work of laying 220 kv transmission line and Towers/evacuating the power from the Project site of the petitioner's company to Kavoor sub-station, and had spent Rs. 18 crores as on the date of filing the writ petitions. It is stated that the said work is almost complete and only awaiting the petitioner's Company to complete the work on the switch yard. It is necessary to mention at this stage that during the construction of the above said transmission lines a non-governmental organisation filed W. P. No. 12790 of 1998 before this Court against the KEB. In the said writ petition the KEB had filed its objections statement stating that this work has been done only for evacuating power from Tanir Bhavi Power Project. In view of these facts and also acting on the solemn undertaking given by the KEB that it would open and operationalise the Escrow Account and LC, the petitioner's Company went ahead with the Project and had invested till now over Rs. 186 crores and gave a bank guarantee aggregating to Rs. 18 crores (Rs. In view of these facts and also acting on the solemn undertaking given by the KEB that it would open and operationalise the Escrow Account and LC, the petitioner's Company went ahead with the Project and had invested till now over Rs. 186 crores and gave a bank guarantee aggregating to Rs. 18 crores (Rs. 10 crores to KEB at the time of bid and Rs. 8/- crores to Bharat Petroleum corporation ). It is necessary to state the steps taken by the petitioner's Company and the KEB pursuant to the acceptance of the bid of the petitioner's Company as follows. (1) The KEB entered into PPA dated 15-12-1997 with the petitioner's Company for purchase of power. In this regard the keb has laid necessary transmission lines at a cost of Rs. 18 crores; (2) The petitioner's Company has given bank guarantee to KEB guaranteeing its commitments under the PPA. The State government has given guarantee by way of Guarantee Agreement as stated earlier; (3) The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board has allotted 33. 34 acres of industrial land in Tanir Bhavi Industrial area to the petitioner's Company for setting up the power project as per the letter of allotment dated 21/25-7-1997. After the allotment of land the petitioner's Company has paid a sum of Rs. 176. 67 lakhs to KIADB; (4) The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited entered into an agreement with the petitioner's Company for supply of 250 thousand metric tonnes of Naphtha. In furtherance of the said agreement BPCL commenced work necessary for creating infrastructure at a cost of over Rs. 26 crores and have already completed erection of 2 Naphtha tanks at a new terminal of BPCL at Bykampadi for storing Naphtha which is required to be supplied to the petitioner's Company and necessary pipelines have also been laid from the said tanks to the Port area. For this the petitioner's Company has issued a bank guarantee for Rs. 8 crores in favour of BPCL; (5) The Financial Institutions/banks, namely, IDBI, IFCI, bank of India, Canara Bank, have committed themselves to finance the Project and in this regard they have taken necessary steps to line up finance running up to Rs. 616 crores. Towards this the petitioner's Company has paid an upfront fee of Rs. 15 lakhs to the IDBI. 616 crores. Towards this the petitioner's Company has paid an upfront fee of Rs. 15 lakhs to the IDBI. Hyundai Engineering Construction Company, Korea has entered into agreements with the petitioner's Company on turnkey Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract for the BMPP at a cost of $ 123. 99 millions; (6) Asea Brown Boveri Limited have entered into agreement with the petitioner's Company for supply of construction of 220 kv switch yard; (7) M/s. Nat West Construction Limited has entered into agreement with the petitioner's Company for land filling works and construction of administrative building and excavation and construction of barge mooring area. Towards this the petitioner's company has paid an advance of Rs. 4. 30 crores; (8) M/s. Afcons Limited has entered into agreement with the petitioner's Company for laying sea water intake and outfall pipeline at a cost of Rs. 31. 29 crores. Towards this the petitioner's company has paid an advance of Rs. 3. 13 crores; (9) The petitioner's Company has engaged several consultants both in India and abroad, namely:" (1) M/s. Sargent and Lundy, Chicago, USA, owners engineers for Technical Design, Engineering and Construction licence for barge mounted power projects and on share services. (2) Kvaerner Masa Marine, Canada, Marine Architects, for specialist Design and Engineering Services for barge design. (3) White and Case, Singapore, being owner's legal Counsel. (4) HR Walingford, U. K. Marine Consultants, for barge mooring and sea water pipeline system. (5) Secon Surveys, Project surveyors. (6) National Institute of Oceanography and Technology, Tamil nadu, for conducting bathymetry. (7) Sargent and Lundy, and Larsen and Toubro, Baroda, owners engineers for onshore services, design, engineering and construction services. (8) SSKI Corporate Finance Limited as project debt structuring and financial advisors to the project. (9) Guleleo Inc. , USA, for technical advisory services, and (10) Amantis International, Singapore, for equity placement and have spent over Rs. 5. 6 crores till date towards professional charges paid to these consultants. Copies of the agreements entered into between the petitioner and the consultants are produced and collectively marked as Annexure-AF". (9) Guleleo Inc. , USA, for technical advisory services, and (10) Amantis International, Singapore, for equity placement and have spent over Rs. 5. 6 crores till date towards professional charges paid to these consultants. Copies of the agreements entered into between the petitioner and the consultants are produced and collectively marked as Annexure-AF". ( 9 ) IT is stated in the petition that the Escrow Cover has been granted by other States such as Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya pradesh, Tamil Nadu in respect of various Power Projects coming up in their States and therefore no harm or prejudice will be caused to the state of Karnataka in the event if the State of Karnataka grants Escrow cover that too when there is acute scarcity of power in the State. ( 10 ) THE 2nd respondent-State of Karnataka has not filed the statement of objections denying the averments made in the petition. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State fairly admits the facts stated above and the progress made by the petitioner's company in implementation of the Project. ( 11 ) THE 1st respondent-KPTCL filed statement of objections at the time of arguments on 12-4-2000. In the statement of objections also the 1st respondent admits all the facts stated above. The only reason given by the KPTCL in not taking steps to arrange for Escrow Cover and the lc is on the basis of the policy decision of the State Government relying upon the letter dated 3-4-2000 written by the Principal Secretary, Department of Energy to the Chairman and Managing Director, KPTCL. One other reason given by the KPTCL in the statement of objections is the Government of India has assured of additional power at low cost and the tariff as proposed by the petitioner's company is above Rs. 4 per unit which is very high compared to other IPPs concerning the State and it is not in the interest of KPTCL. One other reason given by the KPTCL in the statement of objections is the Government of India has assured of additional power at low cost and the tariff as proposed by the petitioner's company is above Rs. 4 per unit which is very high compared to other IPPs concerning the State and it is not in the interest of KPTCL. ( 12 ) SRI Udaya Holla, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondents 1 and 2 agreed to purchase electricity from Euro India at the rate specified on the basis of the formula about a week back by extending the Power Purchase Agreement, whereas, in this case though the terms of contract between the petitioner and respondents are almost identical the State Government is not coming forward to extend the same facility to the petitioner's Company. In order to reply to this statement the learned Advocate General sought for some time and accordingly the case was adjourned. ( 13 ) ON 12-4-2000 the petitioner's company has filed two applications consisting the additional statement of facts. In one such application it is stated that M/s. Euro India Power Canara Limited was also one of the concerns whose bid for setting up Barge Mounted Naphtha based power plant was accepted by the respondents herein. The said concern has not been able to get necessary environmental clearances, sanctions, permissions etc. , and no progress whatsoever has been achieved by the said concern for implementation of the project. In fact the tariff indicated by the said concern is almost the same as that indicated by the petitioner's company. The 1st respondent-KPTCL has entered into a PPA with the said concern during the same period as that of the petitioner's company. It is further stated that subsequent to the filing of these petitions the kptcl has extended the effective date of the PPA of the said concern till June 2000, even though the said concern has not shown any progress whatsoever. This fact has not been denied by the learned Advocate General either by way of filing a written objection or in his argument. In the second application filed by the petitioner's company it is stated that the kptcl has entered into a joint venture with M/s. Unocal of USA to set up a Naphtha based power project at Bidadi of 200 MW. In the second application filed by the petitioner's company it is stated that the kptcl has entered into a joint venture with M/s. Unocal of USA to set up a Naphtha based power project at Bidadi of 200 MW. This project is similar to that of the petitioner's Company except that the said project will be based on land whereas the project of the petitioner will be based on barge. It is stated that the petitioner's Company reliably learned that in the 177th Board Meeting of the KPTCL under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the respondents have cleared the 200 MW naphtha based Bidadi Project. The persons who were present in the said meeting were: Chairman and Managing Director, KPTCL, Principal Secretary (Energy Department), Principal Secretary (Finance) and Principal secretary to Chief Minister. The tariff of this project is more or less similar to that of the petitioner's company. If really the tariff agreed by the KEB with the petitioner's company is on the higher side, there is no reason for the KPTCL to extend the effective date of the PPA entered into with M/s. Euro India Power Canara Limited since the agreed tariff with that of M/s. Euro India is the same as that of the rate agreed with the petitioner's company. Further, if really the KPTCL is of the opinion that the agreed tariff rate with the petitioner's Company is on the higher side, there is no reason for the KPTCL to clear 200 MW Naphtha based Power Project at Bidadi during the pendency of these petitions. ( 14 ) AT the time of argument learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that though the Chief Minister of the State has approved the state Support Agreement, the KPTCL has not taken any steps to execute the said agreement and has not taken any steps to provide the escrow Cover and LC. This fact also has not been denied either by the state or by the KPTCL. These facts clearly show that though the State government is interested in establishing Power Projects promoted by the private sector to meet the acute power shortage in the State, the kptcl consisting of the bureaucrats are not allowing the petitioner's company to establish the power project as per the agreement reached between the parties by extending the Escrow Cover and LC for the reasons best known to them. In the State of Karnataka, as there is scarcity of power, Industrialists are not coming forward to establish industries. The State is also not in a position to provide power to the agriculturists in view of the shortage of power. There are many power shut-downs very frequently due to lack of availability of power in the state. Under these circumstances, there is no reason for the KPTCL to back out from their promise for no reasons. It is not the case of the kptcl that the petitioner's company is delaying the implementation of the Project. The letter written by the KEB dated 7-9-1998 to the petitioner's company reads as follows. "this has reference to your letter mentioned above wherein you have requested the Board to extend the Effective Date of the PPA signed with the Board. In this connection, the Board has taken note of the efforts made by you in the implementation of the project as well as the satisfactory progress achieved. Your request has been considered by the Board and I am directed to inform you that the Board has approved extension of the Effective Date as defined in the PPA dated 15-12-1997 up to one year from the date of signing of the PPA with an extension of 90 days from the present scheduled date of 15th June, 1998 to 15th September, 1998 at the first instance. However, further extension in the Effective date beyond 15th September, 1998 will be considered at the appropriate time depending upon the progress achieved in the implementation of the project". "from a reading of the above said letter, it is clear that there is no default or delay on the part of the petitioner's company in implementing the project. If that is so, there is no reason why the KPTCL is now not extending the effective date and is not taking steps to provide Escrow cover and LC. The inaction on the part of the KPTCL strikes at arbitrariness as it has failed to take steps to extend the similar treatment which had been extended to other Company referred to above by extending the "effective date". ( 15 ) IT is an admitted fact that the KEB has built transmission lines at a cost of Rs. 18 crores for evacuation of power from Tanir Bhavi power Plant (petitioner's project) to the KEB Power Station at Kavoor. ( 15 ) IT is an admitted fact that the KEB has built transmission lines at a cost of Rs. 18 crores for evacuation of power from Tanir Bhavi power Plant (petitioner's project) to the KEB Power Station at Kavoor. This transmission line is meant exclusively for the petitioners' Project and will be of no use to the KEB if the project of the petitioners is not completed. Similarly the Naphtha Tank and terminal are set up by the Bharath petroleum Corporation at a cost of nearly Rs. 26 crores. In the event the kptcl fails to extend the Escrow Cover and LC, it results in harming the interest of the public since an amount of Rs. 18 crores spent by the keb for setting up transmission lines and a sum of Rs. 26 crores spent for erection of Naphtha Tank and terminal set up by the Bharat Petroleum corporation will go waste. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the inaction on the part of the KPTCL virtually affects the interest of the general public. ( 16 ) THE KPTCL being an instrumentality of the State shall treat similarly situated persons or Companies as equals. In the instant case, extending the effective date in the case of Euro India Power Canara limited and not extending the same in favour of the petitioner's company though they are similarly situated is unreasonable, arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ( 17 ) THE learned Advocate General relying upon the decision in the case of Punjab Communications Limited v Union of India and Others, urged that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is not available if it comes in the way of the public interest. The Supreme Court in the above said decision has held as follows. "37. The above survey of cases shows that the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the substantive sense has been accepted as part of our law and that the decision maker can normally be compelled to give effect to his representation in regard to the expectation based on previous practice or past conduct unless some overriding public interest comes in the way. The judgment in national Buildings Construction Corporation v S. Raghunathan, requires that reliance must have been placed on the said representation and the representee must have thereby suffered detriment". The judgment in national Buildings Construction Corporation v S. Raghunathan, requires that reliance must have been placed on the said representation and the representee must have thereby suffered detriment". The above said decision does not in any way help the respondents for the following reasons. ( 18 ) THE petitioner's Company has invested huge amount of money with the fond hope of obtaining favourable action or steps from the respondents. This expectation is legitimate and is to be protected. Further the implementation of the Project is for the public good. As stated earlier, the KPTCL has already spent Rs. 18 crores for building transmission lines and the Bharat Petroleum Corporation has invested Rs. 26 crores for erection of Naphtha Tank and terminal and these investments would go waste if the Project is not allowed to come up on account of the inaction on the part of the KPTCL. Further, the petitioner has complied with all the necessary requirements for the purpose of implementation of the Project. Therefore, if the petitioners' company is not allowed to complete the project it would result in denying its legitimate expectation. ( 19 ) SRI Udaya Holla, learned Counsel for the petitioners relying upon the decision in the case of Gujarat State Financial Corporation v M/s. Lotus Hotels Private Limited, submits that the principle of promissory estoppel squarely applies to the facts of this case. In support of this he submits that the respondents invited global bids for setting up of the barge Mounted Power Plant. Pursuant thereto the bid of the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner was permitted to set up the power plant. In this regard the parties entered into agreements under which the respondents promised to perform certain obligations as evidenced from the facts narrated above and accordingly, the petitioner's company had invested Rs. 186 crores for the implementation of the Power Project apart from the bank guarantee and at this stage, the KEB/kptcl is estopped from backing out from the obligations arising from the solemn promise made by it to the petitioner's Company. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner's Company having entered into contracts with the third parties, if the KEB/kptcl at this stage is allowed to back out from the promise or obligation the petitioner's company would collapse and it results in its civil death. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner's Company having entered into contracts with the third parties, if the KEB/kptcl at this stage is allowed to back out from the promise or obligation the petitioner's company would collapse and it results in its civil death. ( 20 ) THE Government approved the Power Purchase Agreement by its order dated 15-9-1997; the KEB in its letter dated 27-10-1998 has given an undertaking to provide Escrow Cover and LC and State Support agreement to the petitioner and requested the IDBI to give Project finance to the petitioner's Company; the State Government in its letter dated 17-8-1999 directed the KEB to give Escrow Cover on first come first serve basis and directed to examine the modification of the PPA; the petitioner's Company has furnished a Bank guarantee for Rs. 10 crores in favour of the KEB on 4-10-1999, the State Government issued a guarantee in favour of the petitioner on 3-4-1999; the letter of the KEB dated 7-8-1999, to the petitioner stating that the KEB has committed itself upon the letter of credit and provide Escrow Cover as provided in the PPA; the letter dated 14-9-1999 by the KEB addressed to IDBI stating that the Escrow Cover Agreement cannot be signed till election and has sought for extension of validity; Escrow and Disbursement agreement dated 1-10-1999 which provide for Escrow Account being opened operationalise; Security and Hypothecation Agreement dated 26-10-1999} clearly show that the solemn promise made by the keb/kptcl made the petitioner's Company to invest a sum of Rs. 186 crores apart from the agreements entered into between the third parties. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the principle of doctrine of promissory estoppel is attracted. ( 21 ) THE Supreme Court in the above said case has held as follows. "9. It was next contended that the dispute between the parties is in the realm of contract and even if there was a concluded contract between the parties about grant and acceptance of loan, the failure of the Corporation to carry out its part of the obligation may amount to breach of contract for which a remedy lies elsewhere but a writ of mandamus cannot be issued compelling the Corporation to specifically perform the contract. It is too late in the day to contend that the instrumentality of the State which would be 'other authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution can commit breach of a solemn undertaking on which other side has acted and then contend that the party suffering by the breach of contract may sue for damages but cannot compel specific performance of the contract. It was not disputed and in fairness to Mr. Bhatt it must be said that he did not dispute that the Corporation which is set up under Section 3 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1955 is an instrumentality of the State and would be 'other authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution. By its letter of offer dated July 24, 1978 and the subsequent agreement dated february 1, 1979 the appellant entered into a solemn agreement in performance of its statutory duty to advance the loan of Rs. 30 lakhs to the respondent. Acting on the solemn undertaking the respondent proceeded to undertake and execute the project of setting up a 4-star hotel at Baroda. The agreement to advance the loan was entered into in performance of the statutory duty cast on the Corporation by the statute under which it was created and set up. On its solemn promise evidenced by the aforementioned two documents, the respondent incurred expenses, suffered liabilities to set up a hotel. Presumably, if the loan was not forthcoming, the respondent may not have undertaken such a huge project. Acting on the promise of the appellant evidenced by documents, the respondent proceeded to suffer further liabilities to implement and execute the project. In the backdrop of this incontrovertible fact situation, the principle of promissory estoppel would come into play. Presumably, if the loan was not forthcoming, the respondent may not have undertaken such a huge project. Acting on the promise of the appellant evidenced by documents, the respondent proceeded to suffer further liabilities to implement and execute the project. In the backdrop of this incontrovertible fact situation, the principle of promissory estoppel would come into play. In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company (Private) limited v State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court observed as under: the true principle of promissory estoppel, therefore, seems to be that where one party has by his words of conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise 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 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 he 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, and this would be so irrespective of whether there is any pre-existing relationship between the parties or not". ( 22 ) IN view of the above said decision the respondent KEB/kptcl is bound to fulfil its promise and perform its obligations. The learned Advocate general, submitted that the remedy for the petitioner's company, if there is any breach of contract on the part of the respondents is only to sue for damages and therefore the writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India is not maintainable in law. This argument is stated to be rejected in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in m/s. Lotus Hotels Private Limited's case, supra. ( 23 ) THE contention of the KPTCL that as the cost of Naphtha which has to be used for generating power is higher, the purchase price of power is on the higher side and therefore keeping in view the interest of general public, it is not possible to purchase power from petitioner's company. ( 23 ) THE contention of the KPTCL that as the cost of Naphtha which has to be used for generating power is higher, the purchase price of power is on the higher side and therefore keeping in view the interest of general public, it is not possible to purchase power from petitioner's company. Though the KPTCL in its objections has stated that other persons have come forward to sell the electricity at a lower price, it has not furnished which are all the persons or Companies who have come forward to sell electricity at lower price than the price agreed with the petitioner's company. After the acceptance of the bid the parties entered into PPA Agreement. Thereafter, the KEB had written a letter to the idbi undertaking to give Escrow Cover, LC and State Support Agreement. Pursuant to the Government letter dated 17-8-1999, supplemental agreement-2 also came into existence. The KEB has accepted the Bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner's Company for Rs. 10 crores. The keb had also written a letter dated 7-8-1999 to the petitioner stating that the KEB itself has committed to open LC and provide Escrow cover. Thereafter, the petitioner's Company had spent about Rs. 186 crores for the implementation of the Project. The above said documents clearly establish that the KEB had accepted the tariff suggested by the petitioner's company for purchasing electricity on the basis of the formula agreed upon. Now there is no reason or any changed circumstances for the KPTCL to say that the agreed rate of tariff is higher and it is not in public interest. ( 24 ) AS per the maxim "legis minister non tentetur in executione officii, sui, fugere aut retrocedere" (The Minister of Law is bound, in the execution of his office, not to fly nor to retreat), the respondents-authorities having executed the agreements and in view of the correspondence referred to above which made the petitioner's company to spend considerable amount of money for the purpose of implementation of the Project are bound by their commitments and they shall not be allowed to back out from their obligations or commitments. ( 25 ) IN the result I pass the following order: writ petitions are allowed in the following terms. ( 25 ) IN the result I pass the following order: writ petitions are allowed in the following terms. (1) Respondent 1-KPTCL is directed to get the letter from their Bankers committing to open a letter of credit and also to open and operationalise the Escrow Account; (2) The State of Karnataka is directed to execute the State Support Agreement; (3) The respondents are directed to extend the effective date of the Power Purchase agreement dated 15-12-1997 till the project is completed; (4) The petitioners are also directed to complete the Project as expeditiously as possible in view of the directions given to respondents 1 and 2 above. --- *** --- .