21.So far as the cases under categories (i) and (ii) are concerned, it is almost settled that the person aggrieved can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies, (AIR 1968 Supreme Court 718), Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasanagar Municipal Council, (AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1021) and Robertson v. Minister of Pensions, ((1949) 1 King's Bench 227), it was pointed out that public bodies are as much bound as private individuals to carry out representations of facts and promises made by them relying on which other persons have altered their position to their prejudice and in such cases even if the contract has not been embodied in the form prescribed, it can be enforced by a writ in appropriate eases in equity. Similarly, in K. N. Guruswamy v. State of Mysore, (AIR 1954 Supreme Court 592), D.F.O. South Kheri v. Ram Sanhi Singh, (AIR 1973 Supreme Court 205) and Shree Krishna Gynoday Sugar Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (AIR 1975 Patna 123), it has been held that, even if the right to relief arose not of an alleged breach of contract, but the action of the authority which was being challenged was of a public authority vested with statutory power, this court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can grant relief to the aggrieved person. On the other hand, in case falling under category (iii), where there is no question of exercise of any statutory power and the rights of the parties flow from mere terms of the contract entered into by the authorities of the State, a party to such agreement should not be allowed to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this
