ORDER : Simply put the petitioner’s grievance is that it had acted upon the promise extended by the respondents State Government under the Rules in force at the time and changed its position. The respondents though performed some of the obligations, but later on refused to honour their commitments under the Rules giving cause of action to the petitioner to file this petition, seeking implementation of the Rules vis-a-vis benefits to be given to the petitioner under them. 2. Facts:- 2(i) Tourism was declared an industry in Himachal Pradesh on 05.12.1984. Three sets of rules providing incentives to tourism industry in H.P. came into play viz:- (i) H.P. Grant of Incentives to the Tourism Industry Rules, 1984;(ii) H.P. Grant of Incentives to Paying Guest House Scheme, 1988 and (iii) H.P. Grant of Incentives to Dhaba Scheme, 1988. On 26.07.1993 in supersession of above Rules, the respondents notified new Rules for Grant of Incentives to Tourism Industry in H.P. (in short the 1993 Rules). 2(ii) The 1993 Rules came into force w.e.f. 01.08.1993. All new approved tourism units as defined under the rules, which had commenced operations within a period of ten years from the appointed day i.e. from 01.08.1993 up to 01.08.2003 were eligible for grant of incentives mentioned therein. The eligibility clause of the Rules runs as under: - “1.2 Eligibility: (a) All the approved tourism units as defined under these Rules shall be eligible for grant of incentives. (d) These incentives will be available only to those New Tourism Units which commence operations within the period from the appointed day up to 01.03.2003 (i.e. for 10 years) provided that this condition will not be applicable for incentives under Rules 17 and 22. 2.1 Under these rules unless the context otherwise requires: - 2.1(w) “Tourism Unit” means commercial establishment in Himachal Pradesh providing facilities/services to the tourists and will include the following: 1 to 7. …………….. (8) Ropeways.” Rule 1.2(a) was not to be made applicable for incentives available under Rules 17 to 22. Rule 17 with the Heading “Publicity Assistance” aims to encourage participation of tourism units, tour operators & travel agents in publicity of State and for that purpose grants subsidies. Rule 18 provides incentives for tiny tourism units. Tiny tourism unit, as per Rule 2.1 (t) means a small scale tourism unit having fixed capital investment of Rs.10,00,000/- or less. Rule 17 with the Heading “Publicity Assistance” aims to encourage participation of tourism units, tour operators & travel agents in publicity of State and for that purpose grants subsidies. Rule 18 provides incentives for tiny tourism units. Tiny tourism unit, as per Rule 2.1 (t) means a small scale tourism unit having fixed capital investment of Rs.10,00,000/- or less. Ropeways is included in the list of tourism units under definition clause 2.1(w)(8). Several incentives have been made available to the tourism units in form of subsidies, concessions and exemptions under the 1993 Rules. 2(iii) It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the incentives granted by the State under the 1993 Rules, it established a ropeway unit, in the name of ‘Ganpati Ropeways’ at Sh.Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P.. For the purpose of grant of incentives, this area fell under Category ‘A’ of the Rules. ‘Ropeways’ has been included in list of ‘Priority Tourism Projects’ in Annexure-II of the Rules and as such is entitled to incentives under Rule 16 of the Rules. Petitioner’s ropeways unit became operational in August, 1997. 2(iv) Petitioner claimed and was granted several incentives under the Rules by the respondent-Department, however, after sometime, the grant of incentives/payments become irregular and later on stopped altogether. It is in this context, the petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 2010 for grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(a) Quash Annexure P-L i.e Communication bearing No.7- 31/93-TS-II-8462, dated 11.11.2009, issued by Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner with consequential relief in favour of the Petitioner Company. (b) Direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to release the arears of Interest Subsidy, Electricity Duty Paid Subsidy, Advertisement and publicity Expenses Subsidy, Reimbursement/ Subsidy qua the Diesel Generating Set Purchased and Installed by the Petitioner and the Subsidy/ Reimbursement of Charges in respect of amount paid for Feasibility Report, alongwith the interest on the above, totaling in the sum of Rs.26,10,068.68 paise, which amount is due and payable to the Petitioner Company as per and in accordance with the provisions of the ‘Rules for grant of Incentives to Tourism Industry in Himachal Pradesh, 1993.” 3. Contentions Petitioner’s case 3(i)(a) Sh.Arjun Lall, Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that taking into consideration the incentives permissible to the ropeways unit under the 1993 Rules, the petitioner started constructing its ropeway project at Sh.Naina Devi Ji in District Bilaspur, H.P. The commercial operations of this ropeways unit commenced in the year 1997. In accordance with the Incentive Rules 1993 the petitioner had been forwarding its claims to the respondents from time to time. The claims forwarded by the petitioner have been made part of the petition. In response thereto, the petitioner kept on receiving the incentives/payments from the government from time to time. Learned counsel also drew attention to one such sanction order dated 28.02.2001 (page 132 of the petition), whereby the respondents sanctioned and later released an amount of Rs.16,56,401/- for 3% interest subsidy against loan taken by the petitioner. Learned counsel stated that the last such incentive in form of bank draft dated 06.07.2005 for Rs.1,26,949/- was received by the petitioner on 12.07.2005 on account of interest subsidy. Thereafter, no payment was made to the petitioner. The petitioner had repeatedly requested in writing to the respondents to release the unpaid incentives to it under the 1993 Rules. In response to the petitioner’s last communications dated 28.08.2009 and 26.10.2009, the respondents vide impugned office letter dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-L) declined to grant further incentives giving following reason: - “No.7-31/93-TSM-II8462 Department of Tourism and Civil Aviation, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171009 To M/s Ganpati Ropeways (P) Ltd. Nandi Commercial Suite-4B, 4th Floor, 14-B, Camac Street, Kolkata-700071. Dated: Shimla-171009, the 11/11/2009 “Subject: Claim of Incentives. Sir, Please refer to your letter dated 28.08.2009 and 26.10.2009 on the above mentioned subject. In this regard, it is stated that the H.P. Govt. “Scheme of Incentives to Tourism Industry, 1993” have been re-appealed and there is no provision to provide subsidy. In addition, there is no budget provision available with the Department, therefore it is not possible to release the subsidy. Yours faithfully, (Director) Tourism and Civil Aviation Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-9” 3(i)(b) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in all the respondents had paid Rs.23,32,841/- to the petitioner under the1993 Rules. Whereas, incentives amounting to Rs.26,10,068/- as detailed in para-7 of the petitioner, still remain to be paid to it. Para-7 of the petition runs as under: - “7. Yours faithfully, (Director) Tourism and Civil Aviation Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-9” 3(i)(b) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in all the respondents had paid Rs.23,32,841/- to the petitioner under the1993 Rules. Whereas, incentives amounting to Rs.26,10,068/- as detailed in para-7 of the petitioner, still remain to be paid to it. Para-7 of the petition runs as under: - “7. That the Petitioner Company is owed the following amounts from the respondents under various heads by way of incentives and subsidies etc. etc. as detailed herein below: (a) Amount owed by way of Interest Subsidy Incentive: A sum of Rs.6,67,159/- is owed by the respondents, to the Petitioner Company, by way of Principal Amount, on account of incentives due to it from the respondents, under this Head, which has not been paid till date. On the aforementioned amount, the Petitioner Company is also entitled to interest @12%, which comes to a sum of Rs.7.05,902.60 paise. Hence the Petitioner is entitled to a total sum of Rs. 13,73,061.60 paise from the Respondents in this account. Calculations in this respect are annexed hereto as Annexure PD. (b) Amount owed on account of Electricity Duty Subsidy: A sum of Rs.1,51,021/- is owed by the respondents, to the Petitioner Company on account of the Principal Amount of Subsidy due to it on account of reimbursement of Electricity Duty paid by the Petitioner Company to the HP State Electricity Board, which has not been paid till date. Copy of the calculations is annexed hereto as Annexure PE. On the aforementioned amount, the Petitioner Company is also entitled to interest @12%, which comes to a sum of Rs.1,51,356/-. Calculations in this respect are annexed hereto as Annexure PF. Hence the Petitioner is entitled to a total sum of Rs.3,02,377/- from the Respondents in this account. (c) Amount owed on account of Advertisement and Publicity subsidy:- A sum of Rs.3.50,000/- (relating to advertisement subsidy) as well as a sum of Rs.11,68,180/- (relating to publicity subsidy) is owed by the respondents, to the Petitioner Company, as per calculations annexed hereto as Annexure PG. On the aforementioned amount, the Petitioner Company is also entitled to interest @12%, which comes to a sum of Rs.3,72,000/-, as per Annexure PH. Hence the Petitioner is entitled to a total sum of Rs.7,22,000/-, from the Respondents in this account. On the aforementioned amount, the Petitioner Company is also entitled to interest @12%, which comes to a sum of Rs.3,72,000/-, as per Annexure PH. Hence the Petitioner is entitled to a total sum of Rs.7,22,000/-, from the Respondents in this account. (d) Amount owed on account of Reimbursement/ Subsidy qua the Diesel Generating Set Purchased and Installed by the Petitioner at its Unit: A sum of Rs.1,97,630/- is owed by the respondents, to the Petitioner Company on account of subsidy/reimbursement qua the Diesel Generating Set, paid by the Petitioner and which is due from the respondents, which has not been paid till date. (e) Amount owed on account of Reimbursement of Charges paid for Feasibility Report: A sum of Rs.15,000/- is owed by the respondents, to the Petitioner Company on account of subsidy/reimbursement relating to the Feasibility Report, paid by the Petitioner and which is due from the respondents, which has not been paid till date. Hence the total amount that the Petitioner Company is entitled to receive by way of subsidies and the interest thereupon, as per the aforementioned Incentive Rules of the State of Himachal Pradesh, comes to Rs.26,10,068/-, which the respondents are withholding without any reason whatsoever, from the Petitioner Company, in a highly arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Other Tourism Units have received the subsidies due to them and to which they were entitled, under the aforementioned Incentive Rules, from the Respondent State and the Respondent Authorities, but for reasons best known to them, the same are being illegally withheld in so far as the Petitioner Company is concerned. The correspondence addressed to the Respondents, alongwith the supporting documents, which were duly received by the Respondent No.2's office, in this regard, is annexed hereto as Annexure PJ (Colly).” 3(i)(c) The gist of petitioner’s arguments is that it had displaced itself to its disadvantage by investing heavily in the ‘Tourism Ropeways Project’ in the respondent State on the promises held out by the respondents State in its 1993 Incentives Rules. The action of the respondents in refusing payments of amounts due to the petitioner Company under the 1993 Rules is arbitrary. The respondents are estopped by their acts, deeds and conduct from declining to make the payments in question to the petitioner Company. 3(ii) Stand of respondents 3(ii)(a) The respondents-State has not disputed the facts projected by the petitioner. The action of the respondents in refusing payments of amounts due to the petitioner Company under the 1993 Rules is arbitrary. The respondents are estopped by their acts, deeds and conduct from declining to make the payments in question to the petitioner Company. 3(ii) Stand of respondents 3(ii)(a) The respondents-State has not disputed the facts projected by the petitioner. It has not denied that petitioner was entitled to incentives, exemptions and concessions under the 1993 Rules. It has also not denied that some incentives, exemptions, concessions etc. were made available to the petitioner under the 1993 Rules. The facts and figures given by the petitioner in the petition have not been specifically denied. However, in response to para-7 of the petition extracted earlier, following averments have been made by the respondents in their reply: - “Para-7: That the contents of this para which pertains to record do not call for any reply, however, contrary submissions are wrong and hence denied vehemently. The amount is based on presumption and assumption and has no sanctity or liability of the replying respondents. The alleged communications have duly been replied by the replying respondents. No amount as alleged has illegally been withhold by the replying respondents. The petitioner is not entitled for any incentives or subsidies as alleged due to repealing of the which stake the claim of the petitioner and the same is based on hypothesis and conjectures.” 3(ii)(b) The essence of stand of the respondents-State is that the 1993 Rules were repealed by a notification dated 30.04.2001. In view of repeal of the 1993 Rules, incentives in terms of the 1993 Rules, could not be continued to be paid to the petitioner. Apart from the ground of repeal of the 1993 Rules, additional premise of petition being barred by delay and latches has also been taken. 4. Observations Before analyzing the factual scenario of the case, it would be appropriate to first make a reference to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 01.12.2020 in 2020 (13) Scale 500 , The State of Jharkhand and Ors. Versus Brahmputra Matallics Ltd, Ranchi and Anr. The respondent in that case put forward its entitlement to a rebate/deduction from electricity duty in terms of the representation held out by the State in its industrial policy 2012. Versus Brahmputra Matallics Ltd, Ranchi and Anr. The respondent in that case put forward its entitlement to a rebate/deduction from electricity duty in terms of the representation held out by the State in its industrial policy 2012. It was contended that denial of exemption by the State government during the years 2011-2014 was contrary to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Hon’ble Apex Court traced out the origin and evolution of doctrine of promissory estoppel in several judicial precedents. The Court also traversed from doctrine of promissory estoppel to the doctrine of legitimate expectation and referred to various Judgments on the issue in the timeline. It was observed that the State had held out a solemn representation founded on its stated desire to encourage industrialization in the State. Having made a solemn representation, it was manifestly unfair and arbitrary to deprive industrial units within the State of their legitimate entitlement. The Court further held that it is one thing for the State to assert that the writ petitioner had no vested right but quite another for the State to assert that it is not duty bound to disclose its reasons for not giving effect to the exemption notification within the period that was envisaged in the Industrial Policy 2012. The state must discard the colonial notion that it is a sovereign handing out doles at its will. Its policies give rise to legitimate expectations that the state will act according to what it puts forth in the public realm. The State is bound to act fairly, in a transparent manner in its action. This is an elementary requirement of the guarantee against arbitrary state action which Article 14 of the Constitution adopts. The relevant paras of the judgment are extracted hereinafter: - “H.6 Expectations breached by the State of Jharkhand 43. Applying the abovementioned principles in the present case, we are unable to perceive any substance in the submission of the State which was urged in defense before the High Court. Not only did the State in the present case hold out a solemn representation, this representation was founded on its stated desire to encourage industrialization in the State. Applying the abovementioned principles in the present case, we are unable to perceive any substance in the submission of the State which was urged in defense before the High Court. Not only did the State in the present case hold out a solemn representation, this representation was founded on its stated desire to encourage industrialization in the State. The policy document spelt out: (i) The nature of the incentives; (ii) The period during which the incentives would be available; and (iii) The time limit within which follow-up action would be taken by the State government through its departments for implementing the Industrial Policy 2012. 44. The State having held out a solemn representation in the above terms, it would be manifestly unfair and arbitrary to deprive industrial units within the State of their legitimate entitlement. The State government did as a matter of fact, issue a statutory notification under Section 9 but by doing so prospectively with effect from 8 January 2015 it negated the nature of the representation which was held out in the Industrial Policy 2012. Absolutely no justification bearing on reasons of policy or public interest has been offered before the High Court or before this Court for the delay in issuing a notification. The pleadings are completely silent on the reasons for the delay on the part of the government and offer no justification for making the exemption prospective, contrary to the terms of the representation held out in the Industrial Policy 2012. 45. It is one thing for the State to assert that the writ petitioner had no vested right but quite another for the State to assert that it is not duty bound to disclose its reasons for not giving effect to the exemption notification within the period that was envisaged in the Industrial Policy 2012. Both the accountability of the State and the solemn obligation which it undertook in terms of the policy document militate against accepting such a notion of state power. The state must discard the colonial notion that it is a sovereign handing out doles at its will. Its policies give rise to legitimate expectations that the state will act according to what it puts forth in the public realm. In all its actions, the State is bound to act fairly, in a transparent manner. The state must discard the colonial notion that it is a sovereign handing out doles at its will. Its policies give rise to legitimate expectations that the state will act according to what it puts forth in the public realm. In all its actions, the State is bound to act fairly, in a transparent manner. This is an elementary requirement of the guarantee against arbitrary state action which Article 14 of the Constitution adopts. A deprivation of the entitlement of private citizens and private business must be proportional to a requirement grounded in public interest. This conception of state power has been recognized by this Court in a consistent line of decisions. As an illustration, we would like to extract this Court’s observations in National Buildings Construction Corporation (supra): “The Government and its departments, in administering the affairs of the country are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without any iota of abuse of discretion. The policy statements cannot be disregarded unfairly or applied selectively. Unfairness in the form of unreasonableness is akin to violation of natural justice.” 46. Therefore, it is clear that the State had made a representation to the respondent and similarly situated industrial units under the Industrial Policy 2012. This representation gave rise to a legitimate expectation on their behalf, that they would be offered a 50 per cent rebate/deduction in electricity duty for the next five years. However, due to the failure to issue a notification within the stipulated time and by the grant of the exemption only prospectively, the expectation and trust in the State stood violated. Since the State has offered no justification for the delay in issuance of the notification, or provided reasons for it being in public interest, we hold that such a course of action by the State is arbitrary and is violative of Article 14.” 4(i) It is admitted position in the instant case that on 26.07.1993, the State had notified Rules for grant of incentives to tourism industry in H.P. and ‘Ropeways’ was one of the industry covered by ‘tourism units’ defined under Rule 2.1 (w)(8). Under the 1993 Rules, the approved industrial unit is entitled to incentives, exemptions and concessions as detailed therein. 4(ii) It is also an admitted position that the petitioner set-up its ropeways unit at Sh.Naina Devi Ji in District Bilaspur, H.P.. Under the 1993 Rules, the approved industrial unit is entitled to incentives, exemptions and concessions as detailed therein. 4(ii) It is also an admitted position that the petitioner set-up its ropeways unit at Sh.Naina Devi Ji in District Bilaspur, H.P.. This tourism unit became functional in August 1997. It has not been denied that under the 1993 Rules, the unit was entitled to several incentives for a period of ten years. 4(iii) This is also not denied that an amount of Rs.23,32,841/- was paid to the petitioner in form of several incentives/exemptions/concessions etc. under the incentive Rules 1993. Last payment of Rs.1,26,949/- towards the incentives under the 1993 Rules was paid to the petitioner on 12.07.2005. 4(iv) The reason put forth by the State in denying the petitioner the remaining incentives under the 1993 Rules is that Rules framed under 1993 notification were repealed by notification dated 30.04.20001, hence, the benefits under the repealed notification could not be continued to be given to the petitioner. It will be appropriate to extract hereinafter the stand of the State from different paras of its reply: - “Preliminary Objections 2. That the petitioner has no locus standi to file and maintain the present petition in view of the fact that it is the prerogative of the replying respondents to provide subsidies or not in as much as the H.P. Government “Scheme of Incentives to Tourism Industry, 1993” have been repealed and there is no provision to provide subsidy. Furthermore, there is no budget provision available with the replying respondents therefore; it is not possible and feasible to release the subsidy as alleged in the petition. Hence, the petition deserves outright dismissal and be dismissed with exemplary costs. On Merits 4………….However, it is submitted that the H.P. Government “Scheme of Incentives to Tourism Industry, 1993” have been re-appealed and there is no provision to provide subsidy. Furthermore, there is no budget provision available with the replying respondents, therefore; it is not possible and feasible to release the subsidy as alleged in the petition. 5…………. The petitioner has already been informed about the closure of the Scheme. 6. That the contents of this para which pertains to record do not call for any reply, however, contrary submission are wrong and hence denied vehemently. 5…………. The petitioner has already been informed about the closure of the Scheme. 6. That the contents of this para which pertains to record do not call for any reply, however, contrary submission are wrong and hence denied vehemently. As submitted supra, it is the prerogative of the replying respondents and after repealing the scheme, the petitioner is not entitled for any amount as alleged in the petition. 7…………The petitioner is not entitled for any incentives or subsidies as alleged due to repealing of the scheme/Rules. There is nothing on record which stake the claim of the petitioner and the same is based on hypothesis and conjectures. 8.………..It is the prerogative of the replying respondents to continue with the scheme or it has been repealed and the replying respondents has not acted at the instance of the petitioner….after repealing of the scheme, the petitioner has no claim whatsoever as prayed in the petition……….” 4(v) Reading of the notification dated 30.04.2001 makes it apparent that reasons offered by the State to deny the remaining concessions, exemptions and incentives to the petitioner in terms of the 1993 Rules, is fallacious. First of all, the notification dated 30.04.2001 itself saves the action in terms of the previous notification dated 26.07.1993. The ‘repeal and saving clause’ of notification dated 30.04.20001 provides that all incentives already sanctioned under Rules/Schemes so repealed, shall continue and such sanctions for the purpose of said Rules/Schemes shall always be deemed to have been continued and in force. For denying the incentives due to the petitioner under the 1993 Rules, notified on 26.07.1993, the respondent State has taken shelter of 2001 notification. 1993 incentive Rules were repealed by notification issued on 30.04.2001. It will be appropriate to extract hereinafter some relevant provisions from 30.04.2001 notification: - “Notification In supersession to this department’s notification or even no. dated 26-7-93, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to make the following Rules for providing Incentives to the Tourism Industry namely: - RULES FOR GRANT OF INCENTIVES TO TOURISM INDUSTRY FOR SC & ST CATEGORIES IN HIMACHAL PRADESH, 2000. 8. Repeal and Saving 8.1 The Himachal Pradesh Grant of Incentives to Tourism Industry Rules, 1984. The Himachal Pradesh Grant of Incentives to Dhaba Scheme, 1988, The Himachal Pradesh Grant of Incentives to paying Guest House Scheme, 1988 and the Himachal Pradesh grant of Incentives to Tourism Industry Rules, 1993 are hereby repealed. 8. Repeal and Saving 8.1 The Himachal Pradesh Grant of Incentives to Tourism Industry Rules, 1984. The Himachal Pradesh Grant of Incentives to Dhaba Scheme, 1988, The Himachal Pradesh Grant of Incentives to paying Guest House Scheme, 1988 and the Himachal Pradesh grant of Incentives to Tourism Industry Rules, 1993 are hereby repealed. 8.2 Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or action taken under the schemes or the rules repealed shall be deemed to have been done or taken under corresponding provisions of these rules. Provided that nothing contained herein shall affect the incentives already sanctioned under the rules/schemes so repealed and such sanctions shall continued and for the purposes the said Rules/Schemes shall always be deemed to have been continued and in force.” Grant of incentives to the petitioner under the Incentive Rules 1993 was saved in the notification dated 30.04.2001. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the 1993 Rules shall be deemed to have been continued and in force for grant of incentives to the petitioner even after issuance of 2001 notification. Thus, the explanation accorded by the State in denying incentives to the petitioner under the 1993 Rules on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits under the said Rules after coming into force of 30.04.2001 notification cannot be accepted. There is no such embargo in the notification issued on 30.04.2001. The fact that notification dated 30.04.2001 made no adverse impact upon petitioner’s entitlement to continue to receive the incentives under the 1993 Rules, is also apparent from the fact that the respondents State Government itself continued to make payments of various incentives etc. to the petitioner under the 1993 Rules even after the issuance of notification dated 30.04.2001. The last payment was admittedly made to the petitioner on 12.07.2005. Obviously, the respondents-State understood and interpreted the ‘Repeal and Saving clause” of notification dated 30.04.2001 in the manner it should have been and kept on releasing the incentives due to the petitioner under the 1993 Rules even after repeal of these Rules by notification dated 30.04.2001. This was because the entitlement of the petitioner to continue to receive the benefits under repealed the 1993 Rules was not affected in any manner after coming into force of the new incentive Rules vide notification dated 30.04.2001. This was because the entitlement of the petitioner to continue to receive the benefits under repealed the 1993 Rules was not affected in any manner after coming into force of the new incentive Rules vide notification dated 30.04.2001. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Brahamputra Metallics (supra) also supports the claim of the petitioner to continue to receive the remaining benefits due to it under the 1993 Rules. We hold accordingly. 4(vi) The question of delay and latches in petitioner’s filing instant petition, raised by the respondents-State also does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner had been presenting its claim to the respondents in terms of the1993 Rules from time to time. Respondents had also been releasing the payment in favour of the petitioner. The last payment of Rs.1,26,949/- was made by the respondents to the petitioner under a Bank draft dated 06.07.2005 sent on 12.07.2005. The petitioner has placed on record the claims made by it subsequently in terms of the 1993 Rules. The respondent State, vide its communication dated 25/26.05.2006 expressed its inability to release interest subsidy admissible to the petitioner due to non-availability of budget in ‘current financial year’. Petitioner kept on making further claims of incentives in the succeeding years with request for timely release of the same. It was only on 11.11.2009 (impugned Annexure PL) that the respondents declined to grant incentives to the petitioner on the ground that the scheme of incentives to the tourism industry under the 1993 Rules had been repealed and there was no provision in the new Rules notified on 30.04.2001 to provide subsidy to the petitioner. This denial by the respondents in the year 2009 provided cause of action to the petitioner. The writ was filed thereafter in the year 2010. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition claiming grant of remaining incentives from the State in terms of the 1993 Rules, cannot be said to be suffering from delay and latches. The question of delay and latches was also raised in case of Brahamputra Metallics (supra). The plea was not accepted. It was held that the State cannot contend that delay had led it to after its position to its detriment. The parties were also not affected as a consequence of delay. The question of delay and latches was also raised in case of Brahamputra Metallics (supra). The plea was not accepted. It was held that the State cannot contend that delay had led it to after its position to its detriment. The parties were also not affected as a consequence of delay. Relevant paras of the judgment regarding this are as under: - (ii) The argument of delay 48 An earnest effort has been made on behalf of the appellant to submit that the writ petitions before the High Court ought not to have been entertained since they were instituted in 2019. However, Mr. Devashish Bharuka, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents has, in the course of his submissions, correctly urged that the issue of delay has never been raised in the course of the proceedings before the High Court or raised as a ground in the Special Leave Petition before this Court. In High Court of Judicature of Patna vs Madan Mohan Prasad, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice J M Panchal, held thus: “19. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the writ petition was filed by Respondent 1 on 10-11-1990 i.e. seven years after he had superannuated from service, and therefore, the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, cannot be accepted. The impugned judgment nowhere shows that such a point was argued by the appellant before the High Court. No grievance is made in the memorandum of SLP that point regarding delay and laches was argued before the High Court but the same was not dealt with by the High Court when impugned judgment was delivered.” Further, Mr Bharuka has submitted that once the High Court has held the respondent’s writ petition to be legally sustainable on merits, this Court should not interfere on grounds on delays and laches alone. This finds support in the judgment of this Court in Dayal Singh vs Union of India, where a three judge Bench, speaking through Justice S B Sinha, held thus: “41. It was submitted that the respondents having filed a writ petition after a period of eight years, the same ought not to have been entertained. Primarily a question of delay and laches is a matter which is required to be considered by the writ court. It was submitted that the respondents having filed a writ petition after a period of eight years, the same ought not to have been entertained. Primarily a question of delay and laches is a matter which is required to be considered by the writ court. Once the writ court has exercised its jurisdiction despite delay and laches on the part of the respondents, it is not for us at this stage to set aside the order of the High Court on that ground alone particularly when we find that the impugned judgment is legally sustainable.” Mr Bharuka is also correct in submitting that the State cannot possibly contend that the result of the delay has led to it altering its position to its detriment. Nor is it a case where third parties may be affected as a consequence of a delay in instituting writ proceedings. This submission finds support in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Dolly Das, where a two judge Bench, speaking through Justice S Rajendra Babu, noted thus: “8. So far as the contention regarding laches of the respondent in filing the writ petition is concerned, delay, by itself, may not defeat the claim for relief unless the position of the appellant had been so altered which cannot be retracted on account of lapse of time or inaction of the other party. This aspect being dependent upon the examination of the facts of the case and such a contention not having been raised before the High Court, it would not be appropriate to allow the appellants to raise such a contention for the first time before us. Besides, we may notice that the period for which the option of renewal has been exercised has not come to an end. During the subsistence of such a period certainly the respondent could make a complaint that such exercise of option was not available to the appellants and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the High Court could be invoked even at a later stage. Further, the appellants are not put to undue hardship in any manner by reason of this delay in approaching the High Court for a relief.” In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court on the ground of delay alone when the judgment is based on legally sustainable principles. Further, the appellants are not put to undue hardship in any manner by reason of this delay in approaching the High Court for a relief.” In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court on the ground of delay alone when the judgment is based on legally sustainable principles. The delay of the respondent in filing a writ petition by itself should not defeat the claim unless the position of the State has been so altered that it cannot be retracted on account of a lapse of time or the inaction of the writ petitioner. The State has not in the present case either pleaded or argued any hardship if the respondent were to be granted relief. Finally, the decisions in Bhailal Bhai (supra) and Suganmal (supra) related to a petitioner seeking a refund of an illegally collected tax. In the present case, we are not concerned with such a situation. Rather, the petitioner has come before this Court due to arbitrariness in State action which led to the non-fulfillment of their legitimate expectations. 5. Conclusion The upshot of above discussions is that the petitioner established its Ropeways Project in the respondents State in light of the HP Grant of Incentives to Tourism Industry Rules 1993 notified on 26.07.1993. Petitioner’s unit was covered under Rules and entitled to several incentives, exemptions and subsidies mentioned therein for a period of ten years from the date it commenced commercial operations in the year 1997. Petitioner kept on claiming these benefits and was being released the admissible incentives by the respondents-State from time to time. Last payment towards incentives under the 1993 Rules was made to the petitioner on 12.07.2005. In the year 2006, the respondents-State did not release the incentives for want of budget. Petitioner’s subsequent claims of incentives in terms of the 1993 Rules were declined by the State on 11.11.2009 on the ground that the 1993 Rules were repealed by the State by issuing notification on 30.04.2001. The reasons given by the State for not releasing the incentives due to the petitioner under the 1993 Rules are not palatable. Promise was extended by the State in form of grant of specific incentives under the 1993 Rules for encouraging its tourism industry. Petitioner acted upon the promises held out by the State in the 1993 Rules and changed its position. Promise was extended by the State in form of grant of specific incentives under the 1993 Rules for encouraging its tourism industry. Petitioner acted upon the promises held out by the State in the 1993 Rules and changed its position. It established a Ropeways Project in the State. In the facts and circumstances of the case, after releasing some incentives, it is not open to the State to deny release of remaining incentives only on the ground that the 1993 Rules were repealed by 2001 notification. Doctrine of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel as explained in Brahamputra Metallics (supra) come into play in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise, release of incentives to the petitioner under the 1993 Rules is not prohibited under the 2001 notification rather continuation of benefits under and in terms of the 1993 Rules has been provided by the repeal and saving clause of 2001 notification. The State had itself been releasing the benefits to the petitioner even after 2001 notification. The respondents State declined to grant further incentives to the petitioner under the 1993 Rules only on 11.11.2009, hence this petition filed in the year 2010, seeking remaining incentives under the 1993 Rules cannot be said to be suffering from any delay or latches. We therefore, find merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to the benefits due to it in terms of the 1993 Rules notified on 27.07.1993. The respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner for grant of benefits/concessions/incentives/exemptions etc. due to it and which still remain to be paid under the 1993 Rules within a period of four weeks from today. The benefits/concession/incentives/exemption etc. so worked out be released to the petitioner within six weeks from today. The writ petition to stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.