Short Note : 1. By a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners claimed a writ of mandamus directing the respondents State of Madhya Pradesh and the Conservator of Forests, Jabalpur to dispose of the forest produce (Harra) to the highest tenderer in accordance with the terms of tender notice and not to sell the same to respondent No.3. M.P. Rajya Adiwasi Sahkari Vikas Sangh, Maryadit, Mandla Branch, Mandla. 2. Held : It was contended that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies to the present case and the State Government having once decided to sell the forest produce by inviting tenders, could not change the aforesaid decision particularly when a notification inviting tenders was already issued and the petitioners have submitted tenders in response to the said notification. In the opinion of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no basis for applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel In the tender notice, it has been specifically stated that the State Government reserves its rights to refuse or accept any tender without assigning any reason. The forest produce in question undisputedly belongs to the State Government and the subject-matter of disposal being not covered by any statutory provision, the State Government is free to dispose it of in any manner. In the context of the terms and conditions stated in the tender notice, there is nothing to infer that the State Government could not dispose of its own property in any other manner merely because the offers from the willing purchasers have been invited. It is not disputed that the tenders submitted by the petitioners were not accepted. Thus, there is nothing in the nature of a binding contract also so as to enable the petitioners to seek performance or damages. The offer to sell, as contained in the tender notice, was in itself a conditional one leaving it open to the State Government to refuse, to accept any tender and it was not even bound to assign any reason for the same. Apart from the above legal position, there is no material on record sufficient enough to infer that the petitioners have in any manner acted to their detriment in response to the notification inviting tenders. Thus it is not a case where some sort of equity has arisen In favour of the petitioners. Apart from the above legal position, there is no material on record sufficient enough to infer that the petitioners have in any manner acted to their detriment in response to the notification inviting tenders. Thus it is not a case where some sort of equity has arisen In favour of the petitioners. Mere filing of tenders along with the necessary security deposit knowing full well that the same mayor may not be accepted does not make out a case of applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel. M/s Rangaram and Company v. Stale of M.P. and others, M.P. No. 616 of 1971 decided on 20-1-1972, relied on. 3. It was contended that the action of the State Government amounts to discrimination, being in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution is liable to be-quashed. In the opinion of this Court, this contention is on its' face misconceived. It is undisputed that the property belonged to the State Government and it was free to dispose it of in any manner it liked. In such cases, the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution are not attracted. The notification inviting tenders is undisputedly not covered by any statutory provision. The terms and conditions do not contain any statutory obligation which could attract the application of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was contended that since the provisions of section 12 of. M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969, empowered the State Government to dispose of various forest produce, it cannot be said that the subject-matter is purely in exercise of the executive powers of the State. In the opinion of this Court, this contention is not acceptable. It is true that the provision of section 12 of the Act empowered the State Government to dispose of the forest 'produce' but while doing so, the provisions contained in the said section clearly provide that the disposal or sale may be done in any manner as the State Government may direct. Thus, after the State or its officers have been permitted to sell or dispose of the forest produce by. entering into the field of ordinary contract, the relations are no longer governed by the provisions of the Act, but the respective rights and liabilities of the parties depend on the existence of a legal valid contract. In such cases, no question of violation of Article 14 arises. entering into the field of ordinary contract, the relations are no longer governed by the provisions of the Act, but the respective rights and liabilities of the parties depend on the existence of a legal valid contract. In such cases, no question of violation of Article 14 arises. In this field, the parties can only claim the rights conferred upon them by the contract, if any, and remain bound by the terms and conditions of the same unless some statutory provisions step in and apart from the contract create some special statutory obligation on the State in the contractual field. Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1496 relied on. Petition dismissed.