S.N.Phukan, J.— By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of the following petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution registered as Civil Rule Nos. 84-95 of 1979, 116/79, 377/86, 864/86, 865/86 and 1059/87 as the points involved in all the writ petitions are common and these were heard analogously. Before we consider the contentions of the learned counsel we Would like to state the facts briefly as stated in the petitions. The stand taken by the respondent in all the cases arc similar and accordingly, we shall state the case for the respondents together. 2. Facts of Civil Rule Nos. 84 to 95 of 1976 and Civil Rule No. 116 of 1979-The petitioners in all the above Civil Rules were allotted both sal and non-sal trees on payment of royalty, sales tax and 25% monopoly fees. It is stated that the allotment was made under the provisions of Assam Settlement of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender System Rules, 1977. The petitioners approached the concerned Divisional Forest Officer to issue necessary transit pass etc. and also to accept royalty, sales tax and 25% monopoly fees but the concerned officer refused to allot trees on the pica that the Government had directed not to issue transit permit or do other formalities as required under the law. Tie petitioners came to know that the new Government which came to power immediately stopped execution of the order passed by the previous Government. Thereafter notice was issued but no reply was sent by the State Government. According to petitioners though petitioners were not allowed to operate the tress some other persons named in the petition were allowed to do so. Petitioners have alleged that there are sufficient numbers of trees and as such Government can allow them to operate the trees allotted to them. Petitioners could not obtain in spite of best efforts the said order by which the Divisional Forest Officer was directed not to allow the petitioners 16 allot the trees settled With then. Hence tb.3 present petitions for suitable directions. 3. Facts of Civil Rule No.377 of 1986-Petitioner No. l is a partnership concern running as was mill under the name and style "M/S D.S. Rice and Saw Mills” and petitioner No 2 is the partner. Hence tb.3 present petitions for suitable directions. 3. Facts of Civil Rule No.377 of 1986-Petitioner No. l is a partnership concern running as was mill under the name and style "M/S D.S. Rice and Saw Mills” and petitioner No 2 is the partner. On consider­ation of the application filed by the petitioner, Government in the Forest Department allotted 750 cum of sal logs and similar quantity of non sat log on payment of royalty plus 100% monopoly fee and departmental operation costs etc from the available quota of departmentally operated stock. The condition regarding the price was subsequently modified and the above quantity of logs were allotted on payment of Government fixed depot price and other fees etc. subject to availability of stock by letter dated 4th May, 1984 (Annexure B). Petitioner made necessary payment and lifted the entire quantity of non sal logs, but could lift only 150 cum of sal logs. Petitioner made prayer for extension of time which was allowed. But the condition of payment was again changed and petitioner was asked to pay higher rate of royalty, 20 monopoly fee and departmental cost etc. and the validity period of the allot­ment was fixed on 31.10.1985. Petitioner paid Rs 1,10,326.80 paise for 93.672 cum of sal logs-, Rs. 93,844.25 for 72.115 cum, Rs.67,15.35 paise for 50.177 cum and Rs.1,40, 855 for 113.312 cum of sal logs. Petitioner was able to lift 329.476 cum of sal logs Subsequently, petitioner paid necessary amount and could lift 20.808 cum and 18.16 cum. The petitioner was not allowed to lift the balance quantity of logs within the extended period though payment was made. According to the petitioner the balance quantity of 176.079 cum for which he paid a sum of Rs.1,76,000/- has been felled by the Forest Department, separated and marked with hammer for allotment to the petitioner. Petitioner further alleged that out of the allotted timber of 750 cum, no order for another 53.071 cum has been passed by the respondents nor any royalty was demanded. Petitioner represented before the Secretary, Forest Department for allowing him to lift the balance timber and without result so he has approached this Court. During the pendency of the Civil Rule, the allotment was cance­lled by the impugned order dated 8.3.87 vide Annexure I to the petition. 4. Petitioner represented before the Secretary, Forest Department for allowing him to lift the balance timber and without result so he has approached this Court. During the pendency of the Civil Rule, the allotment was cance­lled by the impugned order dated 8.3.87 vide Annexure I to the petition. 4. Facts of Civil Rule 864 of 1986-The petitioner is a forest contractor and got settlement of dead wood coupe for the year 1970-71, but could not operate the coupe which according to the petitioner was due to the fault of the Department. Petitioner made a representation to the Government and accordingly he was granted permit for 200 sal trees. The operation was stopped by the respondents after removal of only 10 trees. The respondents allowed him to operate 72 sal trees which he did. In the year 1984 the respondents were pleased to grant 750 cum sal timber on compassionate ground on payment of royalty, 10% monopoly fee, departmental cost, sales tax etc. The allotment was made from the departmentally operated logs. The petitioner paid necessary amount and could lift 500 cum of sal timber. Balance could not be lifted as stock was not available. Petitioner was informed that he could lift 223. 993 cum of sal timber and accordingly, petitioner deposited royalty, monopoly fee etc. As the petitioner was not allowed to lift 250 cum of sal timber, the present petition has been filed. According to the petitioner he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,42,807. 75 paise for 109.131 cum of timber oat of the above 250 cum of sal timber and though timber was available he was informed by the impugned order dated 16.7.86 vide Annexure P to the petition that the allotment order was cancelled. Hence, the present petition. 5. Facts of Civil Rule No. 865 of 1986-In this case also a coupe was settled with the petitioner in the year 1974-75, but the petitioner even after payment of necessary installment could not operate she coupe. According to the petitioner the operation could not be done due to the fault of the respondents. Petitioner made an appeal and on 17.12.73 he was allotted 100 Nos. of sal trees and equal number of non-sal trees on compassionate ground. The order could not be executed due to the change of the Government. On 28. 5. According to the petitioner the operation could not be done due to the fault of the respondents. Petitioner made an appeal and on 17.12.73 he was allotted 100 Nos. of sal trees and equal number of non-sal trees on compassionate ground. The order could not be executed due to the change of the Government. On 28. 5. 85, Government allotted 276 cum or sal logs on payment of royalty and departmental operation costs etc. from the departmentally operated stock on compassionate ground. Petitioner paid royalty and he also received work order. But subsequently, he came to know that movement of timbers was stopped from 1st week of November, 1985 and as such the petitioner could not lift the timber. Petitioner made a representation bat by the impugned order dated 28.5.85, vide Annexure G to the petition, the allotment order was cancelled. Hence, the present petition. 6. Facts of Civil Rule No. 1059 of 1987-Petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 1. 10. 86 passed by the Government in Forest Department by which Government expressed its inability to release the timber allotted to the petitioner and decided to refund the deposited value of uplifted stock of timber. The letter is at Annexure G to the present petition. Petitioner was allotted 250 cum of sal logs monthly for a period of one year on payment of royalty plus !00% monopoly fee and departmental operation costs- By letter dated 8. 5. 84 Government allotted 3000 cum of limber for a year from April, 1985. The petitioner deposited necessary amount. Necessary release order was issued and it was subsequently stopped. By the impugned order as stated above, the allotment order was cancelled. According to the petitioner he has to get approximately 700 cum of timber from the Government of Assam for which necessary security money and royalty have been deposited. Hence, the present petition. 7. On behalf of all the respondents, affidavits have been filed in respect of Civil Rules Nos. 377, 864 and 865 of 1-986 and 1059/87. The affidavits are on the same line. According to the respondents, this affidavit-in-opposition would also cover other cases. The affidavit has indicated the background for cancellation of all allotment orders , of timber. Some of the facts stated by the petitioners arc disputed. 377, 864 and 865 of 1-986 and 1059/87. The affidavits are on the same line. According to the respondents, this affidavit-in-opposition would also cover other cases. The affidavit has indicated the background for cancellation of all allotment orders , of timber. Some of the facts stated by the petitioners arc disputed. But we need not going into details in respect of these facts as the main point is whether the cancellation of allotment order is legal, valid and proper. 8. Respondents have pleaded that all the individual impugned orders of cancellation are culmination of a common policy decision of the Government and for proper appreciation of the said policy decision respondents have given in the affidavit necessary particulars retarding facts and circumstances of issuance of allotment of timber and while doing so the background of the position of forest and various policies have been stated. 9. Respondents have reiterated that forests have an important role to play in the socio economic life of the people and role of forests in maintaining environmental and ecological balance which has been widely acclaimed and is engaging world wide recognition and attention. Steps have been taken by the Government for conservation of forests and this is more necessary not only to preserve the aesthetic value, but also for the"; purpose of preserving climatic condition, soil erosion and maintaining sub-soil water level. Reference has been made to "Chipok Movement" in India. 10. It has been stated that the North-Eastern Region of India in a geographically and geologically immature and fragile zone Forested areas along the border of Assam serve as an apron to the highly critical catchment areas and as such there is a need for an adequate forests cover in Assam. Compared to some other parts of the country in 1940's and 1950's North Eastern States of the country including Assam had forest wealth as there was not much exploitation. In view of availability of such forest wealth, forest based industries were established and in Assam apart from one match factory, there are 44 recognized plywood mills, 364 saw mills and 3 paper mills. The actual supply of timber to the above forest based industries have been stated in paragraph 9 (c) of the counter. The National Forest Policy of 1952 laid down that 6 % of geographical areas in Hill and 20% in plains should be kept under forest cover. The actual supply of timber to the above forest based industries have been stated in paragraph 9 (c) of the counter. The National Forest Policy of 1952 laid down that 6 % of geographical areas in Hill and 20% in plains should be kept under forest cover. In view of the therein of Assam it was targeted that 33% of the area should be covered with forest. Though Assam has approximately 20% of geographical area covered by reserved forests, but actual effective areas covered by forests is much less as forest land is under illegal occupation of encroachers. Due to such encroach­ment and over exploitation of forest in Assam flash floods, dis­turbance of sub-soil water level, climatic and ecological transformation, reduction in fertility and productivity of land accompanied by scarcity of timber and fuel, which are basic necessities of life are being experienced in Assam. In mid I960 Assam also faced serious deterioration in the availability of forest produce reason being (i) increase in population; (ii) Vanishing of productive areas of unclassed State forest; (iii) reduction of forest areas due to on slaught of plough; (iv) encroachment of forest areas, and (v) growth of forest based industries. As a result of these factors the areas under forest have been vanishing rapidly and there was also over exploitation of forest without generation therefrom. Therefore, it was felt that a sound policy of sustainable use of management of forests has to be adhered to meet the requirement of timber in the State. 11. Forest is a long term venture and the areas have to be worked out of scientific basis in order to give an annual sustained yield in perpetuity and for this purpose working plans have to be formulated and felling of trees has to be done on the basis of proper forest management and such working plans normally cover a period of 10-15 years. It is also essential to select trees for felling in a proper way for forest management and no ad hoc dealing is desirable. 12. It is also essential to select trees for felling in a proper way for forest management and no ad hoc dealing is desirable. 12. The deteriorating situation of the forest in Assam and its alarming character engaged the attention of the Government and in a high level meeting held on 1.10.1983 certain policy decisions were taken and it was also decided that "no timber should be allotted to the saw mills and the release of timber in respect of those mills which did not get their allotment released till that time should be reconsidered. There was a further review of the policy regarding allot­ment of timber and it was decided by the Government not to make any ad hoc allotment of timber from 1.7.84 onwards and further there was an order dated 6. 7.84 not to allot any back log to plywood mills. Accordingly, in a local news paper an advertisement was given declaring stoppage of timber permit in ad hoc manner and by telegram dated 30.10.85 the Chief Conservator of Forest stopped allotment of timber to saw mills, individuals and firms etc. The telegram and the advertisement are annexed to the petition. 13. In spite of the above policy decision allotments of timbers were made and au alarming situation arose as a result of issuance of permits allotting timber in favour of 481 parties during the period from 27.2.83 to 23.12.85. Quantity allotted during the above period was 2,98,499 cum and it was allotted at varying rates. It also came to light that these allotments were made without proper, field verifica­tion regarding availability of timbers, permissibility and feasibility. In most cases no report from the field officers was called for and the applications praying for allotment of timbers were also not processed as per normal procedure. 14. According to the respondents the record reveals the following regarding above allotment of timbers. (a) Unsolicited applications from interested parties were received without any publicity and allotment orders were directly passed on the applications itself. (b) In most cases there were no processing, classification or verifica­tion of the applications nor the identity and eligibility reports were sought for or verified before granting allotments. Allotment orders were passed directly by political bosses, bureaucrats in the Secretariat. (b) In most cases there were no processing, classification or verifica­tion of the applications nor the identity and eligibility reports were sought for or verified before granting allotments. Allotment orders were passed directly by political bosses, bureaucrats in the Secretariat. As field reports were not called for, these allotments were made by granting quotas much in excess of the permissible limit for exploita­tion of various Forest Division and quantity allotted were in excess of the annual yield of a particular range of a Forest Division. Due to shortfall against the such allotment there was heavy organised illegal fallings of trees. (c) The prices were fixed at varying rates much below the rates fetched by competitive sell at the cost of the Government exchequer. In view of such allotments there was also audit objection. (d) These allotments at rates lower than market rate and granted without following official procedure were against public intermit and opposed to the decision of the Government not to grant such allotment. (e) According to the respondents as the stipulated quantity of allotments were much in excess of permissible limit of exploitation of forest, the automatic consequence of these permits would be over exploitation of forest in various ranges. 15. The damage to the forest as a result of these allotments was so obvious that there were public criticism in' press and other forums and it was raised on 28.4.84 in the Parliamentary Consultative Committee of the Department of Environment presided over by the then Prime Minister. 16. In paragraph 10(J) to (L) of the counter affidavit the respon­dents have given loss of revenue to public exchequer due to the allotments in question. The respondents have also annexed as Annexures 5,6 and 8, the letters of forest officials showing an adverse effect of such allotment which was brought to the notice of the Govern­ment. State Government also constituted one man committee known as "Phene Committee" as a fact finding body to go into the entire Aspects of the matter of timber and committee has already submitted its report, a copy of which was supplied to us at the time of hearing. 17. Upon considering all the relevant facts, the Government took the policy decision to stop with immediate effect all felling of trees in various fore it areas except for the purpose of implementation of plan scheme for plantation and re-generation. 17. Upon considering all the relevant facts, the Government took the policy decision to stop with immediate effect all felling of trees in various fore it areas except for the purpose of implementation of plan scheme for plantation and re-generation. In view of the above policy decision the impugned orders were passed. 18. The above policy decision of the Government resulted in the following measures : (1) all permits were to be cancelled; (2) the amount deposited by the parties as royalty etc. for uplifted timber may be refunded. (3) in case of educational and religious institution, which had deposited the royalty but failed to lift timber, they should be allowed to lift timbers on fresh verification of their bonafide requirement with the approval of Chief Conservator of Forest. (4) to avoid deterioration of the departmental stock, stocks may be disposed of through competitive sell. 19. According to the respondents as the allotments were issued without getting a report from the field officer and without considering the availability of timber the only way to meet these allotments was to further exploit the forest which was already over exploited and if timber has to be supplied now against these allotments, large scale felling of trees on unscientific basis has to take place and this will frustrate the decision of the Government and it will also not be in public interest and will have serious long term reparation. The respondents have pleaded that cancellation of allot­ment order have been issued in broadest and greater public interest even at the cost of losing substantial revenue for the time being and as such the said policy decision is reasonable fair and in the public interest. 20. According to respondents cancellation of allotments was a normal corollary to the need of conservation of forest and the policy decision not to fell trees and the relevant facts stated above justify the action taken by the Government. Respondents have further stated that individual interests of a few cannot get the precedence over the permanent and collective interest of the people and the State and as such the doctrine of promissory estoppel will not apply to the present petitions as it would be inequitable and opposed to public interest to compel the Government to honour the allotment. 21. In view of the above position, respondents have pleaded that the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 22. 21. In view of the above position, respondents have pleaded that the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 22. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. Sen, Mr. Bhattacharjee and Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners is that as the allot­ments of timber were made and in pursuance of the said allotments of petitioners performed their part, applying the principles of pro­missory estoppel the Govt. cannot go back on its promise and cancel the allotment orders. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned Advocate General has urged that as all the allotment orders were opposed to public policy and also the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, the cancellation order is not bad in law. 23. Where the parties enter into an agreement which is intended to create legal obligations between them and in pursuance of such agreement one party makes a promise to the other which he knows will be acted on by the promissee, the Court will treat the promise to the extent that it will not allow him to act inconsistently with it even though the promise may not be supported by consideration in the strict sense. This is broadly ca led promissory estoppel. 24. In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Ltd. vs. State of U. P., AIR 1979 SC 621 it was held that parties need not be in any kind of legal relationship before the transaction from which the promissory estoppel takes its origin and the doctrine would seem to apply even where there is no pre-existing legal relationship between the parties, but the promise is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship which will arise in future. It was further held that true principle of promissory estoppel, therefore, seems to be that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, it would be inequitable to allow him to do s~ having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties, and this would be so irrespective whether there is any pre-existing relation­ship between the parties or not. 25. In the cases in hand admittedly, the petitioners get allotments of timber and they also paid the necessary amount as per the allotment order. S > prima facie following the principle of promissory estoppel Govt. cannot go back and cancel the allotment orders and refuse to supply the timbers. But we have to decide whether the allotment orders were made in accordance with procedure and the law and whether the petitioners are entitled to get a direction from this Court for implementation of the promise of the Govt. keeping h view the law laid down by the Apex Court on the point of promissory estoppel. 26. In Express News Papers Pvt. Ltd. ts. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872 it was h-ld that in public law, the most obvious limitation and doctrine of estoppel is that it cannot be invoked so as to give an overriding power which it does not in law possess and in otherwords, no estoppel can legitimate actions which is ultra vires. It was further held that another limitation is that the principle of estoppel does not operate at the level of Govt. policy. 27. In Union of India ts. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806 the Apex Court considered all the decisions regarding promissory estoppel and sum up the law. The Apex Court also noted that this doctrine, ''though of ancient vintage, was rescued from obscurity by Lord Denning in the land mark decision in Central London Property Trust Ltd. ts. High Trees House Ltd., (1956) 1 All. The Apex Court also noted that this doctrine, ''though of ancient vintage, was rescued from obscurity by Lord Denning in the land mark decision in Central London Property Trust Ltd. ts. High Trees House Ltd., (1956) 1 All. E. R. 256. The Apex Court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is well established in the administrative law of India and it represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice and, though commonly named promissory estoppel, it neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel and the basis of this doctrine is the interposition of equity which has always true to its form, stepped into mitigate the rigour of strict law. Summing up the law their Lordships held that there can be no promissory estoppel against the legislature in exercise of its legislation functions nor can the Govt. or public authority be debarred by promissory estoppsl from enforcing a statutory prohibition. It was further held that it is equally true that promissory estoppel can not be used to compel the Govt. or public authority to carry out a representation or a promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer off the Govt. or of the public authority to make. According to their Lordships the doctrine of promissory estoppel being a equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires, if it can be shown by the Govt. or public authority that having regard to the facts it would be inequitable to hold the Govt. or public authority to the promise or representation made by it, the Court would not raise an equity in favour of the person to whom the promise or representation is made and enforce the promise or representation against the Govt. or public authority. It was also held that doctrine of promissory estoppel would be displaced in such a cases because facts, that equity would not require that the Govt. or public authority should be held bound by the promise or representation made by it. 28. Keeping in view the above law we have to examine the following factors-(i) Whether the allotment orders of timber were contrary to law or outside the authority or power of the officer of the Govt. who issued these orders; and (ii) Whether it would be equitabls to hold the Govt. 28. Keeping in view the above law we have to examine the following factors-(i) Whether the allotment orders of timber were contrary to law or outside the authority or power of the officer of the Govt. who issued these orders; and (ii) Whether it would be equitabls to hold the Govt. to the promise it made to the petitioners by the allotment orders. Mr. Goswami learned Advocate General has urged that 'contrary to law' as laid down by the Apex Court would also include decisions of the Apex Court and High Court on the subject. There is no dispute that there is no law regarding promissory estoppel. As held by the Apex Court this doctrine was rescued by Lord Denning and it is bring followed in India. This doctrine is enforced by Courts in India if it comes within the four corners of the decisions of the Apex Courts. We are, therefore, of the opinion that 'law' would definitely include the law laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts in India on the subject. 29. We may briefly state some other ratio laid down by the Apex Court regarding promissory estoppel. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. The International Airport Authority & others, AIR 1979 SC 1626 it was held that Govt. cannot be permitted to say that it will give jobs or enter into contracts or issue quotas or licences only in favour of those having gray hair or belonging to a particular political party or professing a particular religious faith. In matter of granting largess the Govt. cannot act arbitrarily and the action must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the Govt. departs from such standard or norm, the action of the Govt. would be able to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Govt. that the action was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. 30. In M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1992 , the above position was reiterated and the Apex Court held that the discretion of the Govt. can not be unlimited in that the Govt. cannot give largess in its arbitrary discretion or at its sweet will or on such terms as it chooses in its absolute discretion. can not be unlimited in that the Govt. cannot give largess in its arbitrary discretion or at its sweet will or on such terms as it chooses in its absolute discretion. Every activity of the Govt. has a public element in it and it must, therefore, be informed with reason and guided by public interest. According to their Lordships, action of the Govt. in awarding contract or leasing out or otherwise dealing with its property or any other largess, it will be liable to be tested for its validity on the touch stone of reasonableness and public interest and if it fails to satisfy either test, it would be unconstitutional and invalid. However, the Court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Govt. is unreasonable or without public interest, because there are a large number of policy considerations which must necessarily weigh with the Govt. in taking action and therefore the Court would not strike down Governmental action as invalid on this ground, unless it is clearly satisfied that the action was unreasonable and not in public interest. 31. In Ram and Shyam Company vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147 it was inter alia, held that acceptance of an offer secretly made would certainly amount to arbitrary action in the matter of distribution of State largess which is impermissible in view of the decisions of the Apex Court. 32. To sum-up, we may say that in the matter of giving largess, contract or leasing out any property, the Govt. cannot act as it pleases or at its sweet will as discretion of the Govt. in such matters is not unlimited as every activity of the Govt. has a public element, it must, therefore, be informed with reason and guided by public policy. Hence, the action of the Govt. in giving largess has to be tested for its validity on the touch stone of reasonableness and public interest and if it is found that such action was unreasonable, against public policy or arbitrary it is liable to be struck down. 33. Before we consider the legality or otherwise of the allotments in question and subsequent cancellation, we may like to dispose of a point raised by Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners. For sale etc. 33. Before we consider the legality or otherwise of the allotments in question and subsequent cancellation, we may like to dispose of a point raised by Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners. For sale etc. of forest produce in the State there was a set of rules known as the Assam Settlement of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender System Rules, 1967 and these rules were replaced by a new set of rules in the year 1977 and these are also called the Assam Sale of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender System Rules, 1977, Mr. Sen has faintly urged that the present allotment will be covered by 1967 Rules. But we do not find any force in view of the fact that these set of Rules were repealed by rules of 1977 Rules. Drawing our attention to Rule 3 and 28 Mr. Sen has further urged that the Govt. has get absolute powers in selling or settling forest produce. The said rules are quoted below:- "3. Mode of sale, (a) The Forest Produce shall be sold by any of the following methods : (1) by inviting tender; (2) by public auction; (3) by negotiation, direct by Government or on behalf of Government of Assam in Forest Department or any other manner as decided by Government on its own discretion “ "28. Savings- (i) Notwithstanding of any of th6 provisions contained in tees rules, the Government of Assam in Forest Department reserves the right of settle or dispose of any forest produce in the form of mahal, coupes by direct negotiation or in any other manner at its discretion, otherwise than mentioned in these rules in public interest or in accordance with previsions of the Assam Forest Regulations, 1891. (ii) Any act done or purported to have been done prior Co the introduction of these Rules of 1977 or any action taken or purported to have been taken under the Settlement Rules, 1967 shall be deemed to have been done under the New Rules, 1977. (iii) No State Government or State Government Officers or Forest Officers shall be responsible for loss or damage unless he shall have caused the same maliciously or fraudulently prior to the enforcement of these rules or thereafter under these rules." 34. (iii) No State Government or State Government Officers or Forest Officers shall be responsible for loss or damage unless he shall have caused the same maliciously or fraudulently prior to the enforcement of these rules or thereafter under these rules." 34. According to sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 forest produce can be sold by negotiation directly by the Government or in any manner as decided by the Govt. on its own discretion. Rule 28 (i), inter alia, provides that notwithstanding any of the provisions in the Rules, the Govt. shall have right to settle or dispose of any forest produce in the form of mahal coupes by direct negotiations or in any other manner at its discretion in public interest and in accordance with the provisions of Assam Forest Regulations, 1891. It is true that in view of the above provision forest produces may be sold by the State Govt. by associations or otherwise or in any other manner, but in doing so the public interest has to be kept in mind, and that apart these are being largess of the State Govt. it cannot choose to deal with these produces as it pleases. Such settlement or sale of forest produces must be in the public interest and in doing so, the State Govt. shall have to take all reasonable steps to obtain the best available market price. Such settlement etc. cannot be done secretly or arbitrarily. Court will strike down any such settlement made directly by the State Govt. under the above Rules unless the action is reasonable, fair and in public interest. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Sen that the power given to the Govt. by the aforesaid rules is absolute. 35. Mr Sen has urged another short point that in view of the provisions of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 the logs allotted to the petitioners have become their properties as necessary payments have been made. We-are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel as in our opinion if learned counsel wants to enforce the contractual rights remedies lies else where. 36. The back ground given in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent regarding forest, forest wealth and its exploitation is not disputed in this connection our attention has been drawn to the decision of the Apex Court in M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India and others. 36. The back ground given in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent regarding forest, forest wealth and its exploitation is not disputed in this connection our attention has been drawn to the decision of the Apex Court in M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India and others. (1987) 4 SCC 463 wherein the importance and need for protection our environment were emphasised. In Article 48 A of the Constitution it has been laid down that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life. Their Lordships also referred to the proclamation adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Human Environ­ment which took place at Stockholm in June, 1977 in which the Indian delegation led by the Prime Minister of India took a leading role. The said proclamation, inter alia declared that- 1. Man is both creature and moulder of his environment which gives him physical sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth. In the long and tortuous evolution of the human race on this planet a stage has been reached when through the rapid acceleration of science and technology, man has acquired the power to transform his environment in countless ways and on an unprecedented scale. Both aspects of man's environ­ment, the natural and the man made, are essential to his well being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights even the right to life itself. 2. The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the well being of people and economic development throughout the world; it is the urgent desire of the people of the whole world and the duty of all government. 3. Man has constantly to sum up experience and go or discovering, inventing, creating and advancing. In our time man's capability to transform his surroundings, if used wisely, can bring to all people the benefits of development und the opportunity to enhance the quality of life. Wrongly or heedlessly applied, the same power can do in calculate harm to human beings and the human environment. In our time man's capability to transform his surroundings, if used wisely, can bring to all people the benefits of development und the opportunity to enhance the quality of life. Wrongly or heedlessly applied, the same power can do in calculate harm to human beings and the human environment. We see around us growing evidence of manmade harm in many regions of the earth, dangerous levels of pollution in water, air, earth and living beings, major and undesirable disturbances to the ecological balance of the biosphere; destruction and depletion of irreplaceable resources; and gross deficiencies harmful to the physical, mental and social health of man, in the man made environment; particularly in the living and working environment....... To achieve this environmental goal will demand the acceptance of responsibility by citizens and communities and by enterprises and institutions at every level, all sharing equitably in common efforts. Individuals in all walks of life as well as organisations in many fields, by their values and the sum of their actions, will shape the world environment of the future. The conference calls upon the governments and peoples to exert common efforts for the preservation and improvement of the human environment, for the benefit of all the people and for their posterity 37. Now let us consider whether the petitioners have been able to make out a case of promissory estoppel so as to enable to get an appropriate writ from this Court. We may take into considera­tion first the batch of petitions filed in the year 1979 i.e. Civil Rule Nos. 84 to 95 of 1979 and 116 of 19:9. From all these petitions we find that allotments of sal trees were made by the Government to the petitioners of numbering 35 to 100. Interestingly enough the said orders of allotments were made between 15.2.78 to 22.8.78 i.e. within a period of 5 days. We also find that the terms of allot­ments were royalty plus sales tax plus 25% of the monopoly fee. In other words the trees were allotted at the confessionals rate. In some of the cases the allotments were made en compassionate ground inasmuch as these petitioners were settlement holders in respect of forest coupes but it was alleged that they could not operate fully. In other words the trees were allotted at the confessionals rate. In some of the cases the allotments were made en compassionate ground inasmuch as these petitioners were settlement holders in respect of forest coupes but it was alleged that they could not operate fully. It also transpires that fence of petitioners were defaulters in respect of earlier dues to the forest department and allotment orders were made subject to payment of all out-standing dues in installments. 38. The above facts would show that the allotments were made only to favour to the petitioners as the rates were not only at confessional, even the defaulters were allotted timbers. That apart, there is absolutely no dispute that after receipt of the allotment orders, petitioners did not pay the dues to the forest department and as such the question of promissory estoppel in these petitions does not arise. Of course in all the petitions it has been alleged that the petitioners could not make payment as the officials of the forest department refused to accept the same on the ground the instructions were received after the installation of new Ministry. One counter-affidavit has been filed in respect of all the above petitions and it is available in Civil Rule No. 84 of 1979. Apart from the general denial it has been urged that petitioners were defaulters. 39. In the petitions it has been alleged that though petitioners were not allowed to extract the trees other persons were allowed to extract timbers from forest. This has been denied on behalf of the respondents and it has been stated that genuine persons were granted some trees. In view of the above disputed facts we cannot enter into the allegations in these cases. 40. Be that as it may, as stated earlier as the petitioners did not pay any amount against the allotment orders, the principle of promissory estoppel is tot applicable in respect of these petitions. That apart, these matters relate to the year 1978 and much changes regarding the policy of allotment of timbers have taken place in between and at this late stage petitioners are not entitled to invoke our writ jurisdiction. Hence, all the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 41. That apart, these matters relate to the year 1978 and much changes regarding the policy of allotment of timbers have taken place in between and at this late stage petitioners are not entitled to invoke our writ jurisdiction. Hence, all the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 41. From the facts of other writ petitions, it would be clear that allotment orders were issued in favour of the petitioners and they also complied with conditions laid down in the said allotment orders. In other words they also made payment as fixed by the Government. In Motilal Padanpat (supra), it was held that promissory estoppel seems to be that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create a legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by other party, the promos would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it. So prima facie in view of the allotment orders issued by the Govern­ment and as the petitioners acted upon these orders, it appears that the principle of promissory estoppel is applicable to the present petitions. But is it so ? 42. The plea of the respondents were that the allotment orders were made in complete violation of the Government policy and the procedure, that if the allotment orders are to be honoured now, it would result in felling of more trees causing over exploitation of forest and would be against public interest and on the top of that there would be heavy loss of revenue to the State exchequer as the allotments we e made at a confessional rate, far below the market price of timbers. It has also been urged on behalf of the respondents that it would be inequitable to force the Government to honour these allotments order. Now, we have to examine these points. 43. It has also been urged on behalf of the respondents that it would be inequitable to force the Government to honour these allotments order. Now, we have to examine these points. 43. In Godfray Philips (supra) it was held that this doctrine of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires, if it can be shown by the Government or public authority that it would be inequitable to enforce the promise made by the Government or public authority, in Ramana (supra) and M/s Kasturi Lal (supra), it was held inter alia, that in matter of granting largess, Government cannot act arbitrarily and it must be shown that action of the Government was based on some valid principle. In view of the law laid down above, we have to test the validity of the present allotment orders on the touch stone of reasonableness and public interest. 44. There is no dispute that in granting the ^resent allotment orders, no tender was called for and other persons were not given chance to get the opportunity of making an attempt for obtaining sal timbers. It has been urged on behalf of the respondents that the allotment orders ware issued directly by the State Government without even calling for reports from the field officers as to whether timbers were available for allotments. We have been shown the relevant files and we find that timbers were allotted by the authorities sitting in the Secretariat and in some cases orders were passed on the application itself. In Ram and Shyam (supra) it has been held that acceptance of an offer secretly made would certainly amount to an arbitrary action in the matter of distribution of State largess which is impermissible. From some of the letters issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest annexed to the counter affidavit of the respondents as Annexures 5 to 8 we find that even this officer, who is an expert in this field, raised serious objection for such allotments. In one letter it has been stated that in view of these allotment orders, according to police the crime rate in a particular district has gone down as all the criminals have taken the job for felling timber illegally. In one letter it has been stated that in view of these allotment orders, according to police the crime rate in a particular district has gone down as all the criminals have taken the job for felling timber illegally. On the top of that, we find that in the year 1983 there was a decision of the State Government not to allot timbers and restrictions were imposed for this purpose and was duly published in a local English daily newspaper, cutting of which has been annexed as Annexure 4. On behalf of the respondents the report of the Accountant General (Audit) has been placed before us and from the sail report we find that from the year 1980 the Government decided that timber operation was to be done departmentally with a view to minimising illegal felling of trees and earning maximum revenue to the Government account. It has also been stated in the report that from the Government Depot timbers were sold by calling tenders. Thus it appears that the present allotment orders were made giving a go bye to the Government policy. That apart, from the records we find, as stated above that these allotment orders were made on the body of some petitions and also without calling for a report from the field officer. We are, therefore, constraint to hold that allotment orders in respect of the present petitions were not made in the public interest. 45. In the counter affidavit filed, it has been stated that the allotment orders were made at concessional rate. It is also apparent from the allotment orders itself that members were given at concessional rates as the petitioners were to pay only royalty, monopoly fee tax etc. and not the market price. In the audit report also this fact was duly considered and in respect of one Division, namely, Kanchangaon Division it was reported that in view of such allotment orders, the Govt. suffered a loss of revenue to the extent of Rs. 41,45,000/- and odd. In the audit report it has been noted that this was due to the fact that the timbers were given at concessional rate and not at the average price in the competitive sale i. e. sale by tender system. We, therefore, accept contention of the respondents that if the present allotment orders were to be honoured by the respondents, State exchequer would suffer loss of revenue. We, therefore, accept contention of the respondents that if the present allotment orders were to be honoured by the respondents, State exchequer would suffer loss of revenue. 46. We have quoted extensively from the counter-affidavit of the respondents regarding the position of forest wealth in Assam, As stated in the counter, which cannot be disputed that in 1940-1950 compared to other parts of the country N. E States including Assam had forest wealth as there was not much exploitation. But the picture completely changed due to over exploitation and establishment of forest based industries and at present the forest cover in Assam is less than 20% of the total area and accordingly the Government has tried to increase the area to 33%. As a result of exploitation of forest Assam is regularly facing floods etc. and this was felt in the year 1960. As forest is a long term venture and the area has to be worked out in a scientific manner policy decisions were taken for improvement of forest wealth in Assam in the year i983 and duly published as stated above in the newspaper. According to the respondents during the period from 27. 2. 83 to 23. 12. 85 permit were issued allotting timbers in favour of 481 parties and quantity allotted was 2, 98, 499 cum at different rates. It has been specifically stated that if these permit are now honoured by the respondents felling of more trees would be necessary as the stock available with the Department would not be sufficient to meet the requirement. It has also been stated that in view of the above apprehended damages to the forest, there was public criticism in press and other forum and this was also raised in the Parliamentary Consultative Committee presided over by the then Prime Minister. In view of these positions the Govt. had to take the impugned policy decision. 47. It is true that forest is a long term venture as stated by the respondents and the areas under forest has to be worked out in a scientific basis and normally such working plan covers a period of 10 to 15 years. The importance of preserving forest was felt by our law makers and accordingly Article 4jA was introduced in the Constitution under the Chapter of Directive Principles of State Policy. The importance of preserving forest was felt by our law makers and accordingly Article 4jA was introduced in the Constitution under the Chapter of Directive Principles of State Policy. The importance of preserving human environment for our survival was also considered in the conference organised by the United Nation and the proclamation adopted has been quoted by us from the decision of the Apex Court in M. K. Mehta (supra). 48. In view of the above position, if the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to honour their commit­ments, it would be unjust and inequitable and it will be also against Directive Principles of State Policy. Following the ratio laid down in the Godfrey Philip (supra) we are of the opinion that, the petitioners are not entitled to get protection of equitable principle of promissory estoppel. 49. In sum we may say that though prima facie doctrine of promissory estoppel may be applicable to the cases in hand, but from the above analysis we find that all the allotment orders in the present petitions were made ageist the policy decision of the Government in the year 1)83, the rates of allotment of timbers were at concessional rate causing loss of revenue to the State exchequer, if the respondents are asked to honour these commitments it would be result in felling of mare trees, which is against the constitutional provisions and also the proclamation of the United Nations Conference on Human Environment and that the allotment orders were made without giving due publicity and opportunity to all and to put it otherwise orders were passed secretly. 50. We, are, therefore of the opinion that fie petitioners are not entitled to enforce the doctrine of promissory estoppel keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court. 51. The cancellation of the present allotment orders were made in view of the subsequent policy decision taken by the Government which was communicated to the Chief Conservator of Forest on 28.2.86 and the copy of the said order has been annexed in the counter filed by the res­pondents. The said policy decisions resulted in the following measures:- (a) all permits were to be cancelled; (b) royalty etc. The said policy decisions resulted in the following measures:- (a) all permits were to be cancelled; (b) royalty etc. deposited for unlifted timber to be refunded; (c) to avoid deterioration of departmental stock, these may be disposed of through competitive sale; and (d) in case of educational and religious institutions, which had deposited the royalty, but failed to lift timber, they should be allowed to lift timber after making fresh verification of their bonafide requirement. From the facts stated above, we are of the opinion that these decisions of the Govt. cannot faulted as these were taken in greater public interest and in accordance with the Directive Principles of State Policy as laid down in the Constitution. 52. Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to two orders of allotments subsequently issued by the respondents aid has urged that even after above policy decision, as a result of which the impugned cancellation order was issued, the respondents issued permits to two parties. Mr. Goswami, learned Advocate General has stated from records that these two permits were granted under extra-ordinary circumstances and records have been produced before us. We have perused the records and we are satisfied that on the basis of these two orders we are unable to hold that the policy decision has been violated. For example 25 cum of sal timber was allotted to Smti. Anita Das, Proprietor of M/s Jibika Industries, Goalpara at a concessional rate. We find from records that timbers were allotted for construction of the industrial building of the institute far training of women in tailoring, knitting etc. and the present institute is running in a. rented house. Thus we are satisfied that the these two allotments were given for public interest. 53. Mr. P.K. Bhattacharjee, appearing in Civil Rule No. 1059 of 1987 has urged that his case stands on a different footings and it may not be taken up along with other cases. The fact of this case as stated above is that the petitioner was allotted 250 cum of sal logs monthly for a period of 1 year on payment of royalty plus 100% monopoly fee and departmental operation cost. Thereafter, another 3000 cum of timber for a period of one year from April, 1984 was also allotted on that same term of payment and the amount was deposited. Thereafter, another 3000 cum of timber for a period of one year from April, 1984 was also allotted on that same term of payment and the amount was deposited. We failed to understands how this is different one inasmuch as the timbers were allotted at a concessional rate and not at the market value thereby causing revenue loss to the State exchequer. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Bhattacharjee has no force at all. 54. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Civil Rule No.377 of 1986 has also urged that the petitioner needs sympathy inasmuch as the petitioner was given logs for which he made necessary payment and being owner he is entitled to get the logs more particularly as the logs have been marked and kept separately. Though Mr. Roy has urged that the timbers were allotted not at concessional rate, we are unable to accept this submission inasmuch as such allotments were found to be below the average price in competi­tive sale i.e. sale by tender system as observed by the Accountant General in the audit report. However, if the logs have earmarked and kept separately, the petitioner shall be entitled to get the logs subject to the pavement of average price in competitive sale for that particular year. Mr. Sen has urged that similar position is also in respect of Civil Rule No.86 l and 865 of 1986 and as such the same direction is also applicable in these two cases and also any other cases where lops have been ear­marked. We say so more particularly as the learned Advocate General has stated before us that respondents have no objection to give allotted logs after physical verification at the market price prevailing at that time, if such logs have been actually kept for the parties. "'5. The last submission of Mr. Goswami, learned Advocate General is that even assuming a case of promissory estoppel has been made out, this Court may not issue any writ as this will not be in the public interest, namely, preservation of forest and prevention of loss of revenue. "'5. The last submission of Mr. Goswami, learned Advocate General is that even assuming a case of promissory estoppel has been made out, this Court may not issue any writ as this will not be in the public interest, namely, preservation of forest and prevention of loss of revenue. Learned counsel had drawn our attention to Corpus Juris Secundum, 14 Page 10 wherein it was observed that Certiorari is not a writ of right, but issues only on special causes shown to the Court and the Court is vested with judicial discretion to grant or refuse writ as justification may seem so require. This Court in Civil Rule Nos. 398 and 399 of 1980 refused to invoke the discretionary writ jurisdiction to quash an order merely because an illegality was committed. Keeping in view the above ratio laid down, we are satisfied with the submission of the learned Advocate General that this is not a fit case to exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 56. By the impugned cancellation order, it was directed that the amount deposited should be refunded. We have no material to find out as to whether this part of the order was duly followed. It" the amount deposited by the petitioners has not been refunded, in our opinion they are entitled to get interest 12% par anaum from the date of deposit. 57, From what has been stated above, we hold that all the writ petition is are liable to be dismissed, which we hereby do subject to the following conditions:- (i) Petitioners who have been allotted logs and these logs have been earmarked and payment has also been made, they shall be entitled to get these logs subject to payment of market price prevailing on the date of allotment. However, it logs cannot be given or not taken delivery, they shall b; entitled to get interest on the amount deposited as stated above. This shall be done within six months. (ii) The respondents shall refund the amount deposited if not already repaid, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit within a period of 3 months to the other petitioners. There is no order as to costs.