In State of Himachal Pradesh v. M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog, the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to compel the State to grant benefits that were never intended under a government policy. The dispute arose when an existing industrial unit sought concessional electricity tariff benefits under the Himachal Pradesh Industrial Policy, 2019 after undertaking substantial expansion. The Court found that the policy benefit under Clause 16(a) was intended only for new industrial enterprises and not for existing units undergoing expansion. It rejected the argument that the phrase “eligible enterprises” expanded the scope of the policy, observing that equitable doctrines cannot be used to rewrite government policies or create rights beyond their intended framework. The Court also noted that the respondent had already availed benefits under another clause, and granting additional concessions would result in an impermissible double benefit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and reaffirmed that promissory estoppel remains subject to policy intent, statutory limits, and public interest.