Thanks sir, for your view.
Reg Promissory Estoppel, I read as follows:
The following are the essentials to make any promise binding on a department:
1. The dept makes the promise within the ambit of law.
2. There is an intention to enter into a legal relationship.
3. The other party must do an act in furtherance of that promise or is forbidden to do anything.
It is the Point 1 that is troubling. Because, the department says, it NEVER issued the instructions, and the instructions were void ab initio, and they consider it not within the ambit of law. They DID NOT make that promise at all. ('Someone' unauthorisedly did it, and the dept says it is a matter between the dept and this 'Someone'.) Their request to pay up the balance is based on as if this instructions did not exist at all.
Can we still use the Promissory Estoppel ?