ORDER : Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda As the relief sought for in these four writ petitions is one and the same and against same respondents, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid ambiguity in the discussion, the pleadings in W.P.No.29751 of 2021 are taken into consideration as under: i) The present writ petition is filed challenging the letter dated 07.12.2021 issued by the respondent-Devastanam informing the petitioner about cancellation of melchat vastram seva provided to him on 17.12.2021, which is one of the arjitha sevas being performed to Lord Venkateswara, in view of Covid-19 guidelines and also the resolution passed by the respondent-Devastanam. ii) Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he is an ardent devotee of Lord Venkateswara, and as a devotee, he regularly visits Tirumala to have darshan of Lord Venkateswara. He also evinces lot of interest in participating various sevas being performed to the deity. One such sevas is called as Vastra Alankarana Seva which is also called in general as Vastram Seva. In view of such devotion of the petitioner towards Lord Venkateswara, he booked e-ticket to offer seva (Melchat Vastram) on 09.07.2007 vide ticket bearing No.1041884. Pursuant thereto, he was given slot to offer his seva to Lord Venkateswara on 17.12.2021 i.e, approximately 14 years from the date of booking. The petitioner is with a fond hope that his dream of participating in the seva would be fulfilled on 17.12.2021. iii) While so, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, he received a letter dated 07.12.2021 from the 3rd respondent whereby he was communicated that the seva opted by him was cancelled, in view of Covid-19 guidelines and he was instructed to avail break darshan or to get refund of the amount through TTD official website. It was clarified that the break darshan will be provided on par with one crore donors besides extending their entitlement of prasadam after providing darshan. It was also intimated that the last date for availing break darshan or refund is 31.12.2021. It is alleged that the said letter was addressed ten months after the resolution said to have been passed by the respondent- Devastanam on 27.02.2021. It was also intimated that the last date for availing break darshan or refund is 31.12.2021. It is alleged that the said letter was addressed ten months after the resolution said to have been passed by the respondent- Devastanam on 27.02.2021. The authorities of the respondent- Devastanam acted in a casual manner and are not respecting the sentiments of the petitioner who booked the seva ticket about 14 years ago, and denying the right of the petitioner to participate in the seva is unjustified and unreasonable. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file the writ petition. 3. In the other three writ petitions, the petitioners applied for various types of arjitha sevas and they all booked e-tickets in the year 2007, 2008 and 2009 and they were given slots to render sevas in the year 2021 only. The authorities of the respondent-Devastanam also issued individual letters to them cancelling their sevas to Lord Venkateswara and instructed them to avail break darshan or seek refund of the amount through the official website of the respondent-Devastanam. In view of cancellation of their sevas, the petitioners submitted representations to the respondent-Devastanam with a request to accommodate them even in coming days as per the convenience of the respondent-Devastanam, for which the respondent-Devastanam did not respond positively. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions. 4. The respondent-Devastanam filed counter affidavits separately in all the writ petitions denying the averments made by the petitioners and putting forth similar contentions. The respondent-Devastanam is a statutory body which was constituted by virtue of the provisions under Chapter-XIV of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”). It is stated that in order to prevent the spread of Covid-19, darshan facilities to the pilgrims were stopped from 19.03.2020 in accordance with the Covid-19 guidelines issued by the Central Government. Subsequently, the respondent-Devastanam took a decision and allowed the pilgrims to have darshan of the deity from 08.06.2020 onwards. On 27.02.2021, the respondent-Devastanam passed resolution No.412 wherein it is resolved to permit the gruhasthas to participate in Arjitha sevas/Utsavams w.e.f.14.04.2021 by duly following the Covid-19 guidelines and upon production of Covid-19 negative certificate three days before the date of seva and it is also resolved not to allow the old ticket holders like the petitioners for sevas based on Covid-19 guidelines. It is further stated that all the seva ticket holders were informed individually vide intimation letters requesting them to avail break darshan only. Moreover, the same was informed by way of print media and also through SVBC channel and TTD online portal. It is also stated that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the temple was closed for some time and it would not be possible to adjust the Sevakarthas/Gruhasthas in coming days after the restoration of normalcy, as the devotees, who have already booked tickets, would resist, and if their booked dates are modified and they are given the limited space available in the temple, the devotees, who were given options, cannot be accommodated. It is further stated that the seva tickets were cancelled and the arjitha sevas are being performed in Yekantham due to Covid-19 guidelines. In view of the above, the decision of cancellation taken by the respondent-Devastanam is reasonable and it is in the interest of general public, more particularly, in the interest of the devotees of the deity. i) As a matter of fact, Sections 23 and 29 of the Act have no application for the respondent-Devastanam, since special provisions are available for it under Chapter-XIV of the Act. Sections 95 to 131 of the Act are applicable to the respondent-Devastanam. Section 95 of the Act clarifies that the provisions of this Act apply subject to the provisions available under Chapter XIV. Apart from Chapter XIV of the Act, the Government by exercising the powers under Section 153 of the Act framed the Powers & Functions of Tirumala Tirupata Devastanam Board Rules, 1990 (for short “the TTD Rules”) vide G.O.Ms.No.311, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 09.04.1990. According to Section 109 of the Act, the Executive Officer of the Devastanam is the Chief Administrative Officer and he can exercise all the administrative powers to meet the day to day exigencies and also to take necessary action, if the circumstances warrant. Under Section 110 of the Act, the Executive Officer has extraordinary powers to deal with any subject depending upon the necessity. Under Chapter XXVIII of the TTD Rules, the powers and duties of the Executive Officer appointed under Section 106(1) of the Act are described as follows: “1. Rule 216 says that the E.O., TTD is the Chief Administrative Officer of the TTD. 2. Under Chapter XXVIII of the TTD Rules, the powers and duties of the Executive Officer appointed under Section 106(1) of the Act are described as follows: “1. Rule 216 says that the E.O., TTD is the Chief Administrative Officer of the TTD. 2. Rule 217 says that subject to guidance and control of the TTD Board of Trustees, the E.O., TTD can exercise all general powers to carry out the provisions of the chapter-XIV of the Act. 3. Rule 222 says that the Executive Officer has power to regulate the pilgrims for Darshan in all Temples under the control of TTD.” ii) It is further stated that the petitioners do not have any vested legal right to seek the relief which is sought for in the present writ petitions, in view of public interest and also in the interest of the administration of the Devastanam. Any restriction imposed by the respondent- Devastanam is in the interest of the devotees of Lord Venkateswara and only to protect their health and to follow the Covid-19 guidelines issued by the Union of India as well as the Government of Andhra Pradesh. iii) It is also stated that it is for the first time in the history of the respondent-Devastanam that the arjitha sevas were cancelled for such a long time. The respondent-Devastanam would not derive anything by doing so and in the interest of all the stake holders, such decision was taken. There are many similarly placed persons like the petitioners who availed the alternate arrangement of break darshan provided by the respondent-Devastanam. Even the Udayasthamana seva karthas, who will normally have the priority in having the darshan, were requested to avail the alternate arrangement. Out of 17490 ticket holders, 191 ticket holders applied for refund, 8347 ticket holders availed break darshan and 8918 ticket holders remained silent without availing any facility. After a thorough and in-depth consideration of the imbroglio, the present decision to provide break darshan was taken. Therefore, it cannot be assured that in the near future, the sevas would be restored for the sevakarthas. The respondent-Devastanam expresses its regret for the inconvenience caused which is beyond its purview/control and also under unforeseen conditions of Covid-19 pandemic. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. Therefore, it cannot be assured that in the near future, the sevas would be restored for the sevakarthas. The respondent-Devastanam expresses its regret for the inconvenience caused which is beyond its purview/control and also under unforeseen conditions of Covid-19 pandemic. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.29751 of 2021, Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel for the petitioner No.31207 of 2021, Sri Ch. Dhanamjay, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.4359 of 2022, and Smt. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6015 of 2022. Also heard Sri A. Sumanth, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent- Devastanam. 6. Learned counsels for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are ardent devotees of Lord Venkateswara and with a fond hope, they applied for e-tickets to perform different arjitha sevas to the deity, pursuant to the scheme formulated by the respondent- Devastanam, and they were issued arjitha seva tickets and provided with an opportunity to perform the sevas after 14 years. As such, the petitioners are legally entitled to perform the sevas. Further, the petitioners are not insisting the authorities of the respondent- Devastanam to provide an opportunity of performing sevas with immediate effect. But, they are requesting the authorities to provide such opportunity within a period of one or two years from the date of resumption of arjitha sevas. i) The learned counsels would also submit that out of 17490 ticket holders, only 8347 pilgrims availed break darshan and 191 pilgrims only claimed refund, but the remaining 8918 pilgrims including the petitioners did not avail any option. The cancellation of sevas to the deity is nothing but grounding of 14 years’ fond hope of the petitioners. The petitioners are only pursuing their legal rights for performing sevas to the deity even in coming days, in view of the resolution dated 27.02.2021 passed by the Devastanam, by way of submitting replies as also representations to the respondent-Devastanam. The learned counsels would contend that it is the duty of the authorities of the Devastanam to act fairly and allow the petitioners who have legitimate expectation, as the Constitution of India envisages and provides that every person has the right and freedom to choose and practice his or her religion. The learned counsels would contend that it is the duty of the authorities of the Devastanam to act fairly and allow the petitioners who have legitimate expectation, as the Constitution of India envisages and provides that every person has the right and freedom to choose and practice his or her religion. Denial of such benefit of performing arjitha sevas to the deity cannot be compensated by any alternate break darshan or refund of seva amount. In view of the same, the action of the respondent-Devastanam in cancelling the sevas offered to the petitioners after lapse of 14 years under the guise of Covid-19 pandemic, without providing any opportunity of hearing to them, is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. Learned standing counsel for the respondent-Devastanam would vehemently contend that the writ petitions are not maintainable for the reason that the petitioners are not vested with any legal rights and they cannot enforce the same, more particularly, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The cancellation of arjitha seva tickets of the petitioners is in the interest of public and in compliance of Covid-19 guidelines issued by the Union of India as well as the State of Andhra Pradesh. So, the contention of the petitioners that the respondent- Devastanam took the decision unilaterally without providing any opportunity to the petitioners is not justifiable. The other contention of the petitioners that they submitted representations seeking opportunity to perform sevas to the deity in coming days, cannot be tenable, for the reason that if they are allowed and accommodated even in the near future for performing sevas to the deity in pursuance of their e-seva tickets, the other ticket holders, who are silent for all these days, may approach this Court and they may also pray for the same relief and in such an event, it may cause very much hurdle and inconvenience to the respondent-Devastanam. He would submit that the authorities of the respondent-Devastanam do not have any intention to restrain the petitioners as well as the similarly situated persons from having sevas to the deity. But, it is only due to the above mentioned exigencies and other administrative reasons, they were not allowed for performing arjitha sevas. He would submit that the authorities of the respondent-Devastanam do not have any intention to restrain the petitioners as well as the similarly situated persons from having sevas to the deity. But, it is only due to the above mentioned exigencies and other administrative reasons, they were not allowed for performing arjitha sevas. i) The learned standing counsel would further contend that Sections 23 and 29 of the Act have no application to the respondent-Devastanam, since it is governed by the provisions of Sections 95 to 131 and Section 153 of the Act. Moreover, the respondent-Devastanam formulated Rules for its administration vide G.O.Ms.No.311, dated 19.04.1990, under which the Executive Officer of the TTD is the Chief Administrative Officer and he can exercise all the administrative powers to meet the day-to-day exigencies and also to take necessary emergency action, if the circumstances warrant. Under Section 110 of the Act, the Executive Officer has extraordinary powers to deal with the circumstances depending upon the necessity. As per Rule 217, the Executive Officer can exercise all general powers to carry out the provisions of the Chapter-XIV of the Act subject to guidance and control of the TTD Board. Rule 222 envisages that the Executive Officer has power to regulate the pilgrims for darshan in all temples under the control of the respondent-Devastanam. In view of such powers and as per Covid-19 guidelines, the Executive Officer took the decision to cancel all arjitha sevas whose turn fell within the pandemic period i.e., from 19.03.2020 to 13.04.2021. The cancellation is also within the powers of the Executive Officer pursuant to the resolution passed by the Board of Trustees of the respondent-Devastanam. As such, the action of the authorities of the respondent-Devastanam cannot be found fault with and cannot be interfered with. More so, there are no merits in the writ petitions and hence, they are liable to be dismissed. 8. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the scheme formulated by the respondent-Devastanam, with a fond hope they applied for e-tickets to perform different arjitha sevas to the deity and they were issued arjitha seva tickets and provided with an opportunity to perform their respective sevas. 8. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the scheme formulated by the respondent-Devastanam, with a fond hope they applied for e-tickets to perform different arjitha sevas to the deity and they were issued arjitha seva tickets and provided with an opportunity to perform their respective sevas. But, to their utter surprise, the respondent-Devastanam issued the impugned proceedings cancelling their sevas to the deity under the guise of Covid-19 pandemic without providing any such opportunity to them in coming days, which is nothing but grounding of fond hope of the petitioners. Whereas it is the case of the respondent-Devastanam that the Devastnam does not have any intention to restrain the petitioners as well as the similarly situated persons from performing sevas to the deity and the cancellation of arjitha sevas is only in the interest of public and in compliance of Covid- 19 guidelines issued by the Union of India as well as the State of Andhra Pradesh. 9. It is to be noted here that an ordinary person cannot wait for such a lengthy period of 14 years to have the opportunity of performing sevas to the deity, unless he is an ardent devotee of the deity. Apart from that, the petitioners neither availed the VIP break darshan nor claimed refund of amount. On the other hand, they sought for accommodation in the near future and they are asserting their legal rights for performing sevas to the deity even in coming days in a year or two, in view of the resolution dated 27.02.2021 passed by the Devastanam. 10. In the resolution dated 27.02.2021 passed by the Devastanam, it is proposed to commence all the arjitha sevas with effect from 14.04.2021 for the pilgrims who are holding advance booking for the year 2021, but the pilgrims who are having advance booking of arjitha seva tickets for performing sevas in between 20.03.2020 and 13.04.2021 will be provided with an option of converting the seva into VIP break darshan or to get refund of the amount, as it is not feasible to accommodate them to perform arjitha sevas in coming days in view of Covid-19 guidelines. Subsequently, the Additional Executive Officer of the respondent-Devastanam issued proceedings dated 05.03.2021 according permission to the proposals made in the resolution dated 27.02.2021. 11. Subsequently, the Additional Executive Officer of the respondent-Devastanam issued proceedings dated 05.03.2021 according permission to the proposals made in the resolution dated 27.02.2021. 11. It is observed by this Court that in the month of March, 2022, the respondent-Devastanam issued a notification through electronic media as well as print media inviting the devotees to book tickets online for all arjitha sevas from 01.04.2022 onwards, in view of relaxation of Covid-19 guidelines. Pursuant thereto, on 23.03.2022 two pilgrims, namely, Sri K. Venkata Ranga Rao and Smt. K. Neeraja, booked two tickets for Suprabhata Seva to Lord Venkateswara vide Seva Ticket Receipt No.IS23032258474961 dated 23.03.2022 and they were given an opportunity to perform such arjitha seva on 07.05.2022. The Seva Ticket Receipt dated 23.03.2022 issued by the respondent-Devastanam is exhibited hereunder: 12. It is also observed that on 08.05.2022 a news item was published by the respondent-Devastanam in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper inviting the devotees to book tickets for arjitha sevas online for the coming months i.e., June and July, 2022. 13. From the above, it is apparent that the respondent-Devastanam is issuing notifications every month inviting the devotees to book tickets for arjitha sevas in advance for the following month. In view of the same, the contention of the learned standing counsel for the Devastanam that the persons like petitioners, who were denied arjitha sevas due to Covid-19 pandemic, cannot be accommodated because of nonavailability of space, when the arjitha sevas are commenced in a fullfledged manner, is utterly false. When the respondent-Devastnam is issuing notifications from March, 2022 inviting the pilgrims to book etickets for performance of arjitha sevas to the deity from 14.04.2021 in view of relaxation of Covid-19 guidelines, what prevented the authorities of the respondent-Devastanam from providing an opportunity to the petitioners to perform arjitha sevas to the deity within one or two years as sought for by them from the date of commencement of arjitha sevas. As such, the action of the respondent-Devastanam in cancelling the arjitha sevas opted by the petitioners is against the principles of reasonableness and their legitimate expectation. Having collected thousands of rupees from the petitioners one and a half decade ago towards performance of arjitha sevas to the deity, now the action of the respondent-Devastanam in proposing to refund the amount is unreasonable and unethical and the impugned proceedings are detrimental to the petitioners. Having collected thousands of rupees from the petitioners one and a half decade ago towards performance of arjitha sevas to the deity, now the action of the respondent-Devastanam in proposing to refund the amount is unreasonable and unethical and the impugned proceedings are detrimental to the petitioners. On the other hand, out of 17490 ticket holders, only 191 ticket holders applied for refund and 8918 ticket holders including the petitioners did not avail any option. If the remaining 8918 ticket holders are allowed to perform arjitha sevas to the deity, the respondent-Devastanam will not get any new or more income. That is the reason why, now the Devastanam is inviting the new devotees to book online tickets for arjitha sevas by collecting huge amounts from them, which is nothing but encashing the emotions of common people. This attitude of the Devastanam appears to be more commercial than respecting the sentiments of ardent devotees like the petitioners by accommodating them for performing the sevas on any other date after commencement of arjitha sevas, though there is every possibility for the Devastanam to do so. Therefore, the reasons furnished by the 3rd respondent in the impugned letters are not bona fide and in deprivation of the legal rights and legitimate expectation of the petitioners. 14. The Full Bench of this Court has elaborately dealt with the principle of legitimate expectation in Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshana Samithi Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 (2) ALT 528 (FB) (AP) as under: “97) Procedural legitimate expectations have been recognized in a number of common law jurisdictions. In contrast, notwithstanding their acceptance and protection in the United Kingdom. 98) Since its inception, the doctrine of legitimate expectation has been viewed as an offshoot of natural justice. The duty to act fairly is a core tenet of administrative law and a predominant feature in the application of the rules of natural justice. With each individual's entitlement to natural justice and fairness, legitimate expectation reinforces the duty of public bodies to act fairly. It is this protection of fairness that made way for the courts' acknowledgement of legitimate expectations. With each individual's entitlement to natural justice and fairness, legitimate expectation reinforces the duty of public bodies to act fairly. It is this protection of fairness that made way for the courts' acknowledgement of legitimate expectations. In their elaboration of the doctrine, courts of the United Kingdom adopted other key aspects of judicial review such as Wednesbury unreasonableness, fairness (vide “R v. Inland Revenue Commissioners”, exparte M.F.K. Underwirting Agents Limited) and abuse of power (“R. (Bancoult) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs”) to justify the existence and the protection of legitimate expectations. The term legitimate expectation was first used in the case of “Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs”, but was not applied on the facts. Subsequently, in “O'Reilly v Mackman” the doctrine of legitimate expectation was recognized as part of judicial review in public law, allowing individuals to challenge the legality of decisions on the grounds that the decision-maker "had acted outwith the powers conferred upon it". Although initially unclear, the nature and boundaries of the doctrine of legitimate expectation have been elucidated by seminal cases such as “Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service” and “R v North and East Devon Health Authority”, ex parte Coughlan. Notwithstanding efforts of the courts, some ambiguity as to when legitimate expectations arise persisted. In response, Lord Justice of Appeal John Laws proposed the aspiration of "good administration" as a justification for the protection of legitimate expectations.(Nadarajah v. Secretary of State for the Home Department). 99) A procedural legitimate expectation is created when a representation is made by a public authority that it will follow a certain procedure before making a decision on the substantive merits of a particular case. Upon reviewing a claim for the protection of a legitimate expectation against a public authority's decision, courts will deliberate over three key considerations, (a) the situations and circumstances in which legitimate expectations arise, (b) instances in which it would be unlawful for the public authority to frustrate such an expectation, (c) the remedies that would be available to the aggrieved party if it is found that the public authority had unlawfully frustrated a legitimate expectation. 100) To find out whether there is any legitimate expectation, the parties who approach the Court have to satisfy that, the representation must be clear, unambiguous, and not have any relevant qualification; the expectation must be induced by the behaviour of the public authority; the representation must have been made by someone who had actual or apparent authority; the representation must be applicable to the aggrieved parties.Courts take into account not only the reasonableness of the expectation but other considerations such as the nature of representation made. xxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx 103) The other requirement is that such statements or representations must be made by a competent person. For an expectation to be legitimate, the individual making the representation must have actual or apparent authority to make it on behalf of the public authority. Such representations would prima facie bind the public authority. (vide South Bucks District Council v. Flanagan). xxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx 112) In “Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India”, the new criteria for allotment of land was challenged. In the original policy, the seniority with regards to allotment was decided on the basis of date of registration. Subsequently, a change in policy was made in 1990, changing the criteria for deciding seniority based on the date of approval of the final list. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the Housing Societies were entitled to “legitimate expectation” owing to the continuous and consistent practice in the past in matters of allotment. Court further elucidates on the principle stating that presence of “legitimate expectations” can have different outcomes and one such outcome is that the authority should not fail “legitimate expectation” unless there is some justifiable public policy reason for the same. It is further emphasized that availability of reasonable opportunity to those likely being affected by the change in a policy which was consistent in nature is well within the ambit of acting fairly.” 15. The principle laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the above judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case on hand, for the simple reason that pursuant to the scheme formulated by the respondent-Devastanam which is a statutory body, believing the promise made by the Devastanam and its authority, the petitioners booked tickets for performance of arjitha sevas to the deity by parting with huge amounts. As such, the petitioners have a legitimate expectation to have their chance of opportunity to perform the arjitha sevas on the dates as accorded by the respondent-Devastanam. Contrary to it, the respondent-Devastanam issued the impugned proceedings cancelling the arjitha sevas accorded to the petitioners and on the other hand, the Devastanam has been allowing the new devotees to book tickets for performance of arjitha sevas to the deity on day-to-day basis, which would amount to violation of principle of doctrine of legitimate expectation of the petitioners and equality before law as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. The other principle of law is that when the State or its instrumentality introduced a scheme and made a promise for providing an opportunity to the devotees to perform arjitha sevas to the deity upon payment of certain money and when the petitioners accepted the offer and booked tickets by paying the necessary amount believing their offer, the respondent-Devastanam is under legal obligation to perform its part of promise without any qualification. Failure to perform their obligation or part of obligation under such promise is violation of statutory obligation under such promise. In view of the same, the respondent- Devastanam is estopped from issuing the impugned proceedings and by applying the principle of doctrine of estoppel, the respondent- Devastanam is bound to comply its promise. The respondent authorities cannot be permitted to violate its promise on the ground of Covid-19 guidelines. On the other hand, from March, 2022 the very same authority is inviting new devotees for performance of arjitha sevas to the deity on daily basis by collecting money from them. The Hon’ble Apex Court elaborately discussed on the principle of doctrine of estoppel in en-number of judgments and the Full Bench of this Court in Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshana Samithi case (supra) held as under: “128) Jurisprudence behind the Doctrine is that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine. Like all equitable remedies, it is discretionary, in contrast to the common law absolute right like right to damages for breach of contract. The doctrine has been variously called “promissory Estoppel”, “equitable Estoppel”, “quasi Estoppel” and “new Estoppel”. It is a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice and though commonly named “promissory Estoppel”, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of Estoppel. The doctrine has been variously called “promissory Estoppel”, “equitable Estoppel”, “quasi Estoppel” and “new Estoppel”. It is a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice and though commonly named “promissory Estoppel”, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of Estoppel. The true principle of promissory Estoppel is where one party has by his words or conduct made 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 he would not be entitled to go back upon it. It is not necessary, in order to attract the applicability of the doctrine of promissory Estoppel that the promisee acting in reliance of the promise, should suffer any detriment. The only thing necessary is that the promisee should have altered his position in reliance of the promise. xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 131) In the formative period the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked by the promisee unless he had suffered “detriment” or “prejudice”. All that is required is that the party asserting the estoppel must have acted upon the assurance given by him. The alteration of position by the party is the only indispensable requirement of the doctrine. Thus, a party who approached the Court claiming relief based on Promissory Estoppel must establish the requirement stated above, otherwise he is not entitled to claim any relief either as a defense or claim. xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx 140) It is elementary that in a republic governed by the Rule of law, no one, howsoever high or low, is above the law. Everyone is subject to the law as fully and completely as any other and the Government is no exception. It is indeed the pride of constitutional democracy and Rule of law that the Government stands on the same footing as a private individual so far as the obligation of the law is concerned. The former is equally bound as the latter. It is indeed the pride of constitutional democracy and Rule of law that the Government stands on the same footing as a private individual so far as the obligation of the law is concerned. The former is equally bound as the latter. It is indeed difficult to see on what principle can a Government, be committed to the Rule of law, and claim immunity from the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Can the Government say that it is under no obligation to act in a manner that is fair and just or that it is not bound by considerations of "honesty and good faith"? Why should the Government not be held to a high "standard of rectangular rectitude while dealing with its citizens"? There was a time when the doctrine of executive necessity was regarded as sufficient justification for the Government to repudiate even its contractual obligations; but, let it be said to the eternal glory of this Court, this doctrine was emphatically negatived in the Indo-Afghan Agencies case and the supremacy of the Rule of law was established. xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx 147) The same is the case in the present dispute also. Over riding public interest is not adequately pleaded or proved. The rigorous standard of proof has not been met at all.” 17. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issuance of the impugned letters cancelling the arjitha sevas provided to the petitioners after 14 years unilaterally and providing alternate break darshan or refund of money without affording any opportunity of hearing or notice to the petitioners is unsustainable for the reason of non-observation of the principles of natural justice, the principle of doctrine of estoppel and the principle of legitimate expectation and also in violation of the awesome constitutional concept of Ëquality before Law”. Therefore, the impugned letters of the respondent authority warrant interference by this Court. 18. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders issued by the authorities of the respondent-Devastanam are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the representations of the petitioners and provide an opportunity to them for performance of arjitha sevas to the deity, which were opted by them earlier, on any date convenient to both parties, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The respondents are directed to consider the representations of the petitioners and provide an opportunity to them for performance of arjitha sevas to the deity, which were opted by them earlier, on any date convenient to both parties, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.