Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
1. The letter of approval is valid for a period of 12 months from the date of issue. You shall take effective steps within this validity period for the implementation of the project, if an extension to the period of validity is found necessary you should apply preferably 3 months in advance with full justification for any extension of time sought alongwith a detailed statements of the steps taken for the implementation of the project.
2. Adequate steps shall be taken to the satisfaction of the Govt. to Prevent Air, Water and Soil Pollution. Such anti- pollution measures to be installed should conform to the effluent and emis- sion standard prescribed by the H.P. State Pollution Control Board. The equipment for anti-pollution measures will form a part of your. project report. The design of the equipment will have to be got approved from the H.P. State Pollution Control Board. Further, adequate industrial safety measures as provided in the relevant Act should be made to the satisfaction of the State Government.
3. This letter of approval does not constitute an authorisation under Industrial development & Regulation Act, 1951 or any other relevant acts of the Govt. of India. Wherever applicable such permission or clearances as may be required under the provisions of such Acts should be separately obtained by you before taking any effective steps for the implementation of the project.
4. Further this approval of project does not imply any commitment what-so-ever on the pwt of the Government to provide finance, raw materials, land etc. or any Other assistance. Request for such assistance would be considered separately on merits after you have made the necessary application to the concerned authorities. You are, therefore, advised to initiate the steps, for procurement of land, finance and other assistance as required for the project at …. STATE v. GANESH WOOD PRODUCTS [B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J.] 505 your own.
5. You will have to make own arrangement for the procurement of water from the source to the factory site at your own cost. In case you sink a tube well for your unit, you will ensure that it does not upset the water table in that area significantly.
6. You are required to fumish qua1terly progress rep01t until the commencement of production. This report will have to be furnished every quarter ending 31st March, 30th June, 30 the Sept.
7. You will inform this office about the commencement of produc- ti on.
8. You will notify the vacancies to all the employment exchanges in Himachal Pradesh. These vacancies shall be filled in as per notifications issued by the Department from time to time. You shall have to employ only bonafide residents of H.P. and also D trained and technical persons from ITI's, RITI's, polytechnics and Engineering Colleges in the State in your industrial unit. You are further required to give quarterly return regarding employment of Himachal and non-Himachali to the General Manager, Distt. In- dustries Centre, of your district.
9. You will have to make inbuilt parking facilities within factory area or separately for parking of trucks and other vehicles and these will not be allowed to be parked on National Highway/State Highway/other public utility road.
10. This proposal has been approved without any commitment of availability of Khair Wood by the State Govemment.
11. You will have to raise green belt around the factory premises. We are hopeful that you will now immediately initiate effective steps to implement this project. In case of any difficulty/assistance required, kindly feel free to get in touch with us. We assure you of our full co-operation. (EmpJiasis added) H c Wishing you and your enterprise a success. Yours faithfully, sd/- {S.C. Negi) Member Secretary IP ARA" {Let it be noted that this letter is not from the Government of Himachal Pradesh but only from IPARA) The terms of approval are clear enough and we do not think it necessary to set out their substance in our own words. It appears that when IP ARA approved as many as fifteen proposals for establishing katha factories in the State, the Forest Department of the D State and the Ministry of Environment and Forest of the Government of India became alarmed. On September 23, 1992, the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest addressed a letter to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Himachal Pradesh request- ing him to furnish basic information relevant to the State of Himachal Pradesh in the proformas enclosed to the said letter which was necessary E " to review the production and sale of khair wood' teak wood/resin in the c~untry''. A reminder was sent on April 29, 1993. The concern of the Government of India is evident from the letter dated October 6, 1993 addressed to the Forest Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh, which is worth re-producing: "GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRON- MENT AND FORESTS Paryavaran Bhawan, C.G.O. Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi Pin 110 003 No. 3-13/93-94 Dated: 6th October, 1993 To The Forest Secretary, Government .of Himachal Pradesh, STATE v. GANESH WOOD PRODUCTS [B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J.) 507 Shimla. Subject : Registration of New Katha units – availability of khair wood. Sir, I am directed to refer to this Ministry's letter No. 7-4./92-SU dated 18.9 .92 (copy enclosed) regarding review of production and disposal of Khair Wood and to say that the information sought has not yet been received by this Ministry. However, it has come to the notice of this Ministry that the State Govt. have issued orders for registration of 15 new katha units for manufacturing of katha from khair wood and is also contemplating to issue more licences for setting up of new units. This is being done without due con- sideration to the principle of sustainable management of the forest c and is not commensurate to the annual yield for Govt. and private forests. This is against our National Forest Policy of 1988, which D clearly says that no forest based enterprise, except that at the village or cottage level be pennitted in future unless it has been first cleared after a careful scrutiny with regard to assured availability of raw material. (Emphasis supplied) 2; It is, therefore, requested that review of the earlier decision taken by the State Govt. in regard to the registration of 15 new units of Katha may be taken keeping in view the availability of khair Wood in the State as per sustainable annual yield available from Government and private forest area. Action taken in this regard may kindly be sent immediately. Your faithfully, sd/- (Anoop Badhwa) Asstt. Inspector General of Forests." Evidently, this letter was written by Government of India before it was apprised of the action taken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh impugned herein. It is legitimate to presume that similar views must also H have been expressed earlier. Apart from the concern expressed by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, there was a spate of criticism in the media and other public fora (including protest by Chairmen of four block samities) with respect to grant of approval to establish as many as fifteen mechanised units for manufacture of katha in Himachal Pradesh. All this made the Government of Himachal Pradesh and IP ARA to sit up and take notice of the consequences of the action of the sub-committee of IP ARA in approving fifteen units. A full meeting of IP ARA was convened for August 28, 1993. Meanwhile, the capacity of each of these units was C restricted to 3600 metric tonnes or 2400 cubic metres per annum and the "approvals" granted to some other units, who had not taken any steps pursuant to sub-committee's "approval" were cancelled. The full committee . meeting of the IP ARA held on August 28, 1993 took note of the concern expressed in the media and other public fora regarding the peril to the D forest wealth of the State on account of indiscriminate approval of katha factories and tried to restrict the number as much as possible. But then it was faced with the problem that pursuant to the " approval" granted by the sub-committee or IPARA , certain units had already taken steps for setting up of the factories. It was noted that of the fifteen units to which approval was so accorded, Doon Katha industries was promoted by a woman entrepreneur and was a very small industry analogous to a bhatti and further that installation of its factory was almost complete. It was, there- fore, decided not to disturb the approval granted to it. It was also found that five other units, viz., Orient Herbs, Sagar Katha, Dev Bhoomi In- dustries, Naman Wood Products and Ganesh Wood Products are in the process of establishing their units. It noted that the capacity of these industries has already been restricted to 3600 metric tonnes, The IP ARA was of the opinion that the approximate availability of khair wood in the State is 30,000 cubic metres and that it would be· sufficient to feed to the existing bhatties, existing mechanised factory (Shankar Trading Company) and the aforesaid six new units with their restricted capacity. It decided G that the approvals of the other units should be cancelled because they had not taken any concrete steps to implement the projects approved. The IP ARA also took note of the requirement of Shankar Trading company (Mahesh Udyog) and the agreement it had with the Government of Himachal Pradesh and felt that its capacity and its requirement of raw H material should be assessed and verified in a proper manner. The proposals STATE v. GANESH WOOD PRODUCTS (B.P. JEEV AN REDDY,.J.] 509 and recommendations of the IP ARA aforesaid were placed before H.E. A the Governor for approval. On September 15, 1993, H.E. the Governor made the following order : "In my opinion, the proposal at Para 5 and its sub para 1 on page 3 of the note deserve to be modified as under : Para 5 – sub para 2 (3) Shri Hari Krishan Bajaj, Prop. M/s. Dev Bhumi Industries, Baddi District, Solan, ( 4) M/s. Naman wood Products, Tahliwala, District Una and (5) M/s. Ganesh Wood Products, Sansarpur Terrace, Distt. Kangra, H.P., as approved by IP ARA Sub-Committee should not be implemented. Only units at para 5 sub-para 2(1) Shri Anil Kumar Arya, Prop. M/s. Orient Herbs, Baddi, Distt. Solan (2) M/s. Sagar Katha Factory, Kala Amb. distt. Sirmour and one small proposal of Bhatti type being set up by Mrs. Sushma Chauhan, a woman entrepreneur c at Paonta Sahib (para 5 sub para 1) are approved and be irnple- mented. sd/- Governor 15.9.93" The decision was communicated to the concerned persons – leading E to the filing of several writ petitions in the High Court. AVAILABILITY OF KATHA IN THE STA TE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH: Pursuant to the directions of the High Court on the question of availability of raw material for manufacturing katha, Sri R.K. Anand, Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, filed, what he designated as "short affidavit in compliance to the order dated 31.12.1993 passed by the Hon'ble Court". It is instructive to extract certain portions of this affidavit in view of their crucial relevance : "(1) it is submitted that policy in regard to cutting of Khair trees is to obtain yield on sustained basis.** The National and State policies in regard to establishment of industries is as under : An echo of sustainable development emphasised by "The Worlsd Commission on Environment and Development". c (i) National Forest Policy: Para 4.9. of the National Forest Policy states that 'as far as possible', a forest based industry should raise the raw material needed for meeting its own requirement preferab- ly by establishment of a direct relation between the factory and the individuals who can grow the raw materials by supporting the individuals with inputs including credit, constant technical advice and finally harvesting and transport services." (ii) State Forest Policy: Para No. 25 of the H.P. State Forest Policy states that "until detailed forest resources, _wood production and consumption studies have been carried out to determine wood balances specially of broad leaved species,. available at present and in future (projections over a period of twenty years) for various industries, no commitment for supply of raw material should be held out to the wood based industries. The consequences of proposed moratorium of commercial fellings shall also have to be fully kept in view''. Regarding establishment of forest based industries particularly those based on khairwood, it is stated that so far there is only one mechanized katha unit apart from about 100 Bhatties. As per the decision of the government while the mechanized unit is allotted 50% of the total khairwood available annually from Government forests and all the Bhatti units get 12 1/2%. Though the installed capacity of the said mechanized unit is 5000 M3 per year as assessed by the representatives of the Forest, industry Deptts and Small industries Service institution – an organisation of Govt. of India Situated at Solan, as per the suggestion of IP ARA – yet the management of the said mechanized unit i.e. Mahesh Udyog has represented to the Government that the installed capacity of the unit has not been properly assessed. Accordingly, their repre- sentation is being examined ……… . (2) Working plan of khair trees : Khair trees are not found all over the State. these are confined to the lower belt of H.P. From Sirmaur district in the East to Chamba in the West. All the khair trees in Government Forests have not been enumerated. However, Working Plans ~ave been prepared in respect of Forest Divisions which prescribe ceFtain annual yield in terms of numbers of trees STATE v. GANESH WOOD PRODUCTS (B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.) 511 and volume and area. The yield is exactly known after carrying out A markings and fellings. However, the average annual yield is 2838 cubic metres. It is average of 1990-91 to 1992-93. Periodicity of Working Plans is 15 years. It is not, therefore, possible to furnish information for 30 years. There is no working plan or enumeration of khair trees growing B on private land. However, the annual yield of 21034 cubic metres of Khair Wood from private ownership is based on extraction of khair wood during the year 1990-91 and 1991-92. This makes a total annual availability of 23872 cubic metres (2838 + 21034) of khair wood both from Government and private ownership …….. 5. Approval of the State Govemment : IP ARA had initially cleared 14 projects and conveyed the clearance to the respective parties in anticipation of the Government approval. However, Govern- ment reviewed the decision of IP ARA taken in its meeting held on 28.8.1993 and decided that 6 units out of 14 which were D recommended by IP ARA, only 3 units in order of precedence or receipt of applications be allowed to continue. Accordingly, IP ARA withdrew the approval of all units except 3 as allowed by Government. 6. Policy regarding import/export of khair wood from outside the State of Himachal Pradesh : There is no ban on export of khair wood from the State in respect of khair wood obtained from private land. However, the export from the State of khair wood obtained from private land is regulated in terms of the Government's order contained in Annexure R-19. The Khair wood extracted from Government Forest by H.P. St~te Forest Corporation Ltd. and disposed through open auction is required to be utilised within the State of Himachal Pradesh only. There is no restriction on the import of khair wood from G outside the State." It is clear from the above affidavit that there has been no systematic or a proper survey of the availability of khair wood in the State. The availability of khair wood is determined on the basis of quantity extracted during the years 1990-91 to 1992-93 in the case of government forests and H 1990-91 and 1991-92 in the case of private forests. It is obvious, and an indisputable proposition, that extraction in a given year or in certain given years is no index of availability. The estimate of availability on the basis of extraction in a given two or three years' period is bound to be faulty. Extraction in a given year or years may be more or less than the average c annual availability. THE MYOPIC APPROACH OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE !PARA IN APPROVING THE PROPOSALS FOR KATHA FACTORIES: During the years 1992 and 1993, the sub-committee of IP ARA seems to have been proceeding on the assumption that so long as there is no commitment on the part of the government to supply khair wood to the proposed factories, there is no harm in approving any and every proposal that comes before it. This Cannot but be termed as a totally faulty and a myopic approach. It is also violative of the National Forest Policy and the D State Forest policy evolved by the Government of India and the Himachal Pradesh Government respectively – besides the fact that it is contrary to public interest involved in preserving forest wealth, maintenance of en- vironment and ecology and considerations of sustainable growth and inter- generational equity. Afterall, the present generation has no right to deplete all the existing forests and leave nothi,ng for the next and future genera- tions. Not keeping the above considerations in mind, it is obvious, has vitiated the approvals granted by the sub-committee of IP ARA – apart from the fact that it was not empowered to grant any such approval. The obligation of sustainable development requires that a proper assessment should be made of the forest wealth and the establishment of industries based on fore st produce should not only be restlicted accordingly but their working should also be monitored closely to ensure that the required balance is not disturbed. In this view of the matter, we must say that insofar as forest- based industries are concerned, there is no absolute or unrestricted right to establish industries notwithstanding the policy of liberalisation an- nounced by the Government of India. The policy of liberalisation has to be G understood in the light of the National Forest Policy devised by the Government of India itself and in the light of the several enactments applicable in that behalf, some of wlrich have been referred to herein- before. It is meaningless to prescribe merely that the government need not supply the raw material and that the units will have to get their khair H trees/raw material from private lands/forests.No distinction can.be made STATE v. GANESH WOOD PRODUCTS [B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J.) 513 between govemment fores ts and p1ivate forests in the matter off orest wealth A of the nation and in the matter of environment and ecology. It is .iust not possible or permissible. The National Forest Policy and the Himachal Pradesh Forest Policy do not make any such distinction. The perils of ignoring the above policies and considerations cannot be over-emphasised. We must say that in the light of the above considerations, the High Court was not right in observing that Sri Y ogendra Chandra cannot be accepted as a public spirited citizen approaching the court to protect public interest – more so, when it has recorded a simultaneous finding that there is no evidence of collusion between him and Shankar Trading Com- pany (Mahesh Udyog). The credentials of Sri Yogendra Chandra appear to be impeccable. He is not only a member of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly but also the Convenor of the Indian National Trust c for Art and Cultural -Heritage. He is also the President of the Himalayan Wild Life and Environment Preservation Society. The said organisations may be big or small, may be well-established ones or recently started ones – that is immaterial. Once it is found that he was not acting at the instance D of or at the behest of or for protecting the interests of Shankar Trading Company, there was no reason to hold that he was not acting bonafide in approaching the court to preserve the forest wealth of the State in the interest of environment and ecology. ·His inability to produce material in support of his allegation of illicit felling in the State does not tell upon his bonafides. We may also mention, even at this stage, that so far as shankar Trading Company is concerned, there is absolutely no doubt in our mind that it is not entitled to question the approvals granted to new units since there was no indication at any stage that the supplies which it was receiving in the previous years pursuant to the agreement with the government were going to be affected. It is attempt to stop the new industries from coming up in the State, while enjoying an almost monopoly status in the matter of khair wood supplies, is certainly a strong factor· militating against its bonafides in approaching the court. THE DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY £STOPPEL AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST: The doctrine of promissory estoppel is by now well recognised in this country. Even so it should be noticed that it is an evolving doctrine, the H A contours of which are not yet fully and finally demarcated. It would be instructive to bear in mind what Viscount Hailsham said in Woodhouse Ltd. v. Nige1ia1i Produce Ltd., (1972) A.C. 741 : c "I desire to add that the time may soon come when the whole sequence of cases based upon promissory estoppel since the war, beginning with Central London Property Tmst Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd., (1947) 1 K.B. 130) may need to be reviewed and reduced to a coherent body of doctrine by the courts. I do not mean to say that they are to be regarded with suspicion. But as is common with an expanding doctrine, they do raise problems of coherent exposition which have never been systematically ex- plored." Though the above view was expressed as far back as 1972, it is no less valid today. The dissonance in the views expressed by this Court in D some of its decisions on the subject emphasises such a need. The views expounded in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) 2 S.C.C. 409, was depll1ted from in wtain respects in lit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana, [1981] 1 S.C.C. 11), which was in turn criticised in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Limited, [1985] 4 S.C.C. 369. The divergence in approach adopted in Sri Baku/ Oil In- dustries v. State of Gujarat, [1981] 1 S.C.C. 31 and Poumami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala, [1986] Suppl. S.C.C. 72B is another instance. The fact the recent decision in Kasinka Trading and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1995] 1 S.C.C. 274, is being reconsidered by larger bench is yet another affirma- tion of the need stressed by Lord Hailsham for enunciating "a coherent body of doctrine by the Courts". An aspect needing a clear exposition – and which is of immediate relevance herein – is what is the precise meaning of the words "the promisee …. alters his position", in the statement of the doctrine. The doctrine has been formulated in the following words in Mis. Motilal Padamapat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. : "The law may, therefore, now be taken to be settled as a result of this decision, that where the Government makes a promise know- ing or intending that it would be acted on by the prornisee and, in fact the promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Govt. would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Govt. at the instance of the promisee, STATE v. GANESH WOOD PRODUCTS [B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.] 515 notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and ft,.. the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Art. 299 of the Constitution." What does altering the position mean? Does it mean such a change in the position of the promisee (as a result of acting on the faith of representation of the promissor) that compensating him in money would not be just and equitable to him, i.e., a situation where the ends of justice and requirements of equity demand that the promissor should not be allowed to go back on his representation and must be held to it or does altering his position mean doing of some act, big or small, which the promisee does acting on the faith of the representation which he would not have done but for the repre- sentation? In other words, is it enough that the promisee has spent some money or has taken some step acting on the basis of representation, which can be recompensed in money or otherwise? Is it not ultimately a m~tter c of doing equity and justice between the parties – a case of holding the scales even between the parties and deciding whether in the interests of justice D and equity the promissor can be allowed to resile from his promise and compensate the promisee appropriately or the promissor ought to be held to his promise and not allowed to go back since such a course is necessary in view of the change in position of promisee? Our view of the matter is probably evident from the way we have posed the above questions. To wit, the rule of promissory estoppel. being an equitable doctrine, has to be moulded to suit the particular situation it is not a hard and fast rule but an elastic one, the objective of which is to do justice between the parties and to extend an equitable treatment to them. If it is more just from the point of view of both promissor and promisee that the latter is compen- sated appropriately and allow the promissor to go back on his promise, that should be done; but if the Court is of the opinion that the interests of justice and equity demand that the promissor should not be allowed to resile from his representation in the facts and circumstances of that case, it will do so. This, in our respectful opinion, is the proper way of under- standing the words "promisee altering his position". Altering his position G should mean alteration in the position of the promisee as it make it appear to the Court that holding the promissor to his representation is necessary to do justice between the parties. The doctrine should not be reduced to a rule of thumb. Being an equitable doctrine it should be kept elastic enough in the hands of the Court to do complete justice between the parties. Now, can the doctrine of promissory estoppel be put on a higher H pedestal than the written contract between the parties? Take a case where there is a contract between the parties containing the very same terms as are found in the "approval" granted by IPARA (sub- committee) and then the governmeBt resiles from the contract and terminates the contract. The promisee will then· have to file a suit for specific performance of the c contract in which case the court will decide, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, whether the plaintiff should be granted specific performance of the contact or only a decree for damages for breach of contract. It must be remem- bered that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was evolved to protect a promisee who acts on the faith of a promise/representation made by promissor and alters his position even though there is no consideration for . the promise and even though the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract. Surely, a representation made or undertaking given in a formal contract is as good as, if not better than, a mere representation. All that we wish to emphasise is that anything and everything done by the D promisee on the faith of the representation does not necessarily amount to altering his position so as to preclude the promissor from resiling from his representation. If the equity demands that the promissor is allowed to resile and the promisee is compensated appropriately, that ought to be done. If, however, equity demands, in the light of the things done by the promisee on the faith of the representation, that the promissor should be precluded from resiling and that he should be held fast to his repre- sentation, that should be done. To repeat, it is a matter of holding the scales even between the parties – to do justice between them. This is the equity implicit in the doctrine. The matters before us have to be approached and decided keeping the above principles in mind. The Court should first ascertain what precise- ly has each the said five respondents (Ganesh Wood Products, Naman Wood products, Dev Bhoomi Industries, Indian Wood Products and Chander Katha Industries) have done on the basis of and on the faith of the "approval" granted by the IP ARA (sub- committee of IP ARA) by the G date of the communication of the decision of the government – and IP ARA in the case of two last mentioned units. [The expression "communication" in this behalf should be understood as explained in State of Punjab v~ Khemi Ram, A.I.R.(1970) S.C. 214. After ascertaining the same, the Court shall have to decide whether it is a case – separately in case of each of the said H respondents – where the government should or should not be allowed to STATE v. GANESH WOOD PRODUCTS [B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J.) 517 go back on the said "approval" granted by the IPARA (sub-committee). It A is obvious that this decision has to be taken after giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce material in support of their respective stands. Inasmuch as the High Court has not approached and examined the case from the above standpoint, the matter has to go back. While deciding the appropriate courts, it is evident that the Court shall also have to keep in mind the plea of government that IP ARA or its sub-committee was not competent to accord approval and that the power lay only with the govern- ment, as also the plea of the respondents that in the circumstances they believed and acted in good faith that IPARA is but another name or, a mouthpiece of, the government. It is equally evident that while deciding where the interests of justice and equity lie, the Court will also take into account, and balance, public interest and the interest of the respondents aforesaid. The Court shall also take into consideration the estimate of raw material (khair trees) and its expected availability – at present and in the years to come – to be made by the Himachal Pradesh government pursuant c to the directions contained herein with the aid of an expert committee. The D High Court may give six months' time to the government to arrive at such an estimate and to place it before the Court. It may perhaps be appropriate to point out that what we have said above is consistent with the doctrine as stated in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills and the subsequent decisions. In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills, it has E been held firstly that : "But it is necessary to point out that since the doctrine of promis- sory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires. If it can be shown by the Government that having F regard to the facts as they have subsequently transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it, the Court would not raise an equity in favour of the promisee and enforce the promise against the government. The doctrine of promissory estoppel would be displaced in such a case because, G on the facts, equity would not require that the Government should be held bound by the promise made by it. When the Government is able to show that in view of the facts which have transpired since the making of the promise, public interest would be prejudiced if the government were required to carry out the promise, the Court would have to balance the public interest in the Government H c carrying out a promise made to a citizen which has induced the citizen to act upon it and alter his position and the public interest likely to suffer it the promise were required to be carried out by the Government and determine which way the equity lies." and then it is observed : "But even where there is no such overriding public interest, it may still be competent to the Government to resile from the promise 'on giving reasonable notice, which need not be a formal notice, giving the promisee a reasonable opportunity of resuming his position' provided of course it is possible for the promisee to restore the status quo ante. If, however, the promisee cannot resume his position, the promise could become final and ir- revocable. Vide Ajayi v. Briscoe (1964) 3 All ER 556." It is this aspect which has been elaborated by us keeping in mind the facts D and circumstances of this case. It is true that in case of the three units (Ganesh Wood Products, Naman Wood Products and Dev Bhoomi Industries), the full meeting of IP ARA (held on August 28, 1993) opined that "it would not be appropriate to rescind the approval keeping in view the progress made in implementa- tion of their projects …….. ". yet it is not clear what exactly had they done by the date of rejection of their proposal by the Government (23rd September, 1993). Even the High Court has not recorded any clear finding on this aspect. All that it said is : "It is apparent that the Units recommended by IP ARA were earlier registered with the industries Department and have thereafter purchase, lands, constructed factory buildings, and/either pur- chased or placed orders for machinery. In some cases even the raw- material has been purchased." There is no reference to any material in support of the said opinion nor is the case of each of the petit~oners separately examined. Probably, the High Court was influenced by the G opinion expressed by the IPARA (at the meeting held on August28, 1993) referred to above. But it would be seen that it too is quite general and vague. Hence, the necessity for the remand to High Court. OBLIGATION OF THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH TO MAKE A PROPER ESTIMATE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE RAW- H MATERIAL!KHAIR WOOD IN THE STATE: STATE v. GANESHWOODPRODUCTS[B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.) 519 The facts stated above do establish the imperative necessity of a A proper estimate of the availability of raw material, namely, khair wood in the St~.te. We are told that any and every khair tree is not fit for cutting for obtaining katha. Only a tree with a particular girth (20 cm. at breast height) yields the optimum quantity of requisite material and is allowed to be cut. Trees with lesser girth are not allowed to be cut as per the Technical Order no. 670 dated 13th August, 1993 issued under the Himachal Pradesh Land Preservation Act, 1978 and the Rules made thereunder. This Order, it may be noted, is applicable to private lands/forests. The State Govern- ment should obtain a proper estimate of the khair wood in the State and also to make an estimate of its availability in each of the coming years with the assistance of an expert body to be appointed in consultation with the Ministry of Environment, Government of India. Such an estimate should cover both the Government and private lands/forests and must be arrived c at keeping in view the National and State forest policies and the relevant statutory provisions. It is only then one can say, what is the quantity of khair wood available and how may industries it can feed – and upto what D. capacity. Further, it is on the basis of such estimate that the capacity of the katha factories, at any given point of time, may have to be restricted, if need be. Some of them may even have to be closed if warranted by public interest. We must say that the estimate of availability of raw material arrived E at by the High Court is based upon the quantity extracted over a period of two or three years. As pointed out hereinabove, the quantity extracted in a given year or given years can never be treated as a proper estimate of the availability of the raw material. Hence, the need for a proper and credible survey by an expert body. In this view of the matter, it is not F necessary to deal with the criticism mounted by the learned counsel for respondents to the varying estimates of raw material put forward by the government at various stages of this litigation and to other alleged con- tradictions in its case from stage to stage. The appeals are accordingly allowed, the judgment of the High Court G is set aside and the matters remitted to high Court for a fresh disposal of the writ petitions in accordance with law and in the light of this judgment. Pending the passing of final orders by High Court pursuant to these directions, none of the said five units – Ganesh Wood Products, Naman H Wood products, Dev Bhoomi Industries, Indian Wood Products and Chander Katha – shall take any further steps towards setting up the factory. The status quo as on today shall continue. The government and an con- cerned shall take steps to ensure observance of this direction. The Government of Himachal pradesh shall make a surv~y and assess the approximate availability of khair wood Hi the year 1996 and the ensuing years. This shall be done through an expert body to be appointed by the government. The government shall be entitled to rely upon the expert committee's report and its own assessment arrived on the basis of such report before the High Court for its consideration as provided in this C judgment. No new industry/unit for manufacture of katha shall be approved by the government pending a final decision by the government on the question of availability of raw material in the years to come. No. order as to costs in these appeals. R.A. Appeals allowed.