R. A. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) WHETHER the petitioner is entitled to exemption from levy on rice produced by him is the only question involved in this writ petition. ( 2 ) IN exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Government of India Ministry of Agricultural Order dated 9-6-1978 and with the prior concurrence of the Central Government, the Government of U. P. promulgated an order known as The U. P. Rice and Paddy (Levy and Regulation of Trade) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Order ). Para 3 of the Order provides for compulsory levy on rice produced by the licensed miller at notified price. Para 5 contains a prohibition against the sale and/or disposal of the rice except in accordance with the release certificate issued by the prescribed authority in token of having sold the prescribed percentage of levy rice. Except for few districts of east U. P. , the prescribed percentage of levy rice of 60% of the rice milled by the licensed miller. For certain districts of east U. P. the prescribedpercentage of levy rice is 40%. Para 24 gives power to the State Government to exempt any rice from levy with the concurrence of the Central Government. ( 3 ) GOVERNMENT of U. P. vide its order dated 31-10-1991, while announcing levy programme for the year 1991-92, declared that if any rice mill is established after 1-10-1991 in any of those districts of east U. P. where levy has been fixed at 40%, it will be granted complete exemption from the levy in rice for a period of 5 years. By another order dated 7-1-1992 the State Government has issued further directions /clarifications in this connection. Vide order dated 14-9-1992 the Government has laid down that only those rice mills will be entitled for exemption from levy where all the following four things have been done after 1-10-1991. 1. Purchase of land for establishing the mill,2. Placement of the Order for machinery and the plant. 3. Application for loan before the Bank or other financial institution; and4. Application for grant of permit before the Regional Food Controller. It was further laid down that if any of the four things was not done after 1-10-1991, the new mill will not be entitled to exemption from levy. Placement of the Order for machinery and the plant. 3. Application for loan before the Bank or other financial institution; and4. Application for grant of permit before the Regional Food Controller. It was further laid down that if any of the four things was not done after 1-10-1991, the new mill will not be entitled to exemption from levy. The aforesaid scheme of exemption was continued in the subsequent year 1992-93. However, in modification of its earlier order dated 31-10-1991, the Government of U. P. issued another order dated 16-12-1992 granting exemption from levy to the new rice mills with effect from 1-10-1991 on graded basis by granting complete exemption in the first year and thereafter in the next four years reducing the exemption to 40, 30, 20 and 10 percent respectively. ( 4 ) PETITIONER claims that in view of the announcement of the State Government for granting exemption for levy to the new rice mills established after 1-10-1991, he decided to set up mini rice mill with one rubber roller of 5 inches with a capacity of hulling 30 quintals paddy in eight hours at Sarai Inait, Allahabad and for this purpose he obtained a permit for establishing the new rice mill under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, on 8-7-1992, which was initially valid up to 7-1-1993 but was extended subsequently. Petitioners mill was registered with the District Industries Centre, Allahabad and the certificate in that connection was issued to him on 31-7-1992. On 28-10-1992 petitioner placed the order for purchase of plant and machinery, which was delivered to him on 7-1-1993. He was also granted registration under the Central and State Sales Tax Acts on 10-12-1992 and vide order dated 16-11-1992 he was granted exemption from payment of purchase tax on paddy. On 26-7-1993 he applied for loan of Rs. 3,00,000. 00. The State Bank of India sanctioned a working capital loan of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 and a term loan of sum of Rs. 1,00,000,. 00. The electricity connection was sanctioned to him on 12-3-1993. On 15-6-1993 he was granted licence under the aforesaid 1958 Act and started production from 18-6-1993. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he has established a new rice mill at the heavy cost in view of the incentive offered by the Government vide its order dated 31-10-1991, but the respondents have refused to exempt him from levy. On 15-6-1993 he was granted licence under the aforesaid 1958 Act and started production from 18-6-1993. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he has established a new rice mill at the heavy cost in view of the incentive offered by the Government vide its order dated 31-10-1991, but the respondents have refused to exempt him from levy. Hence this writ petition. ( 5 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions in support of the writ petition, namely, (i) Government is bound by the Rule of Promissory Estoppel and, as such, it has to grant complete exemption to the petitioners rice mill from levy on rice for a period of five years; and (ii) the condition No. 1 laid down by the Government Order dated 14-9-1992, namley, purchase of land after 1-10-1991, is absolutely unjustified and illegal and the petitioners rice mill cannot be refused exemption from levy on that ground. ( 7 ) RULE of Promissory Estoppel is well known rule on which parties can base their claim if the conditions precedent for its applicability are satisfied. Regarding it the Supreme Court in M. P. Sugar Mills v. State of U. P. , AIR 1979 SC 621 : (1979 All LJ 368) has laid down as under"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 effect 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 parry making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it. "thus, if on the basis of promise by words or conduct of a party another person has changed his position, it would not be open to that party to resile from it. But it is not every promise to which the principles of promissory estoppel can be applied. There are certain exceptions to this Rule. "thus, if on the basis of promise by words or conduct of a party another person has changed his position, it would not be open to that party to resile from it. But it is not every promise to which the principles of promissory estoppel can be applied. There are certain exceptions to this Rule. The principle of promissory estoppel cannot be applied against the legislature when it exercises the legislative power, nor can it be used to compel the Government or public authority to carry out its promise, which is contrary to the law or which was outside its power. In this connection reference may be made to union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. , AIR 1986 SC 806 , in paragraph 14 of which it was laid down as follows :"of course we must make it clear, and that is also laid down in Motilal Sugar Mills case, AIR 1979 SC 621 : (1979 All LJ 368) (supra), that there can be no promissory estoppel against the legislature in the exercise of its legislative functions nor can the Government or public authority be debarred by promissory estoppel from enforcing the statutory prohibition. It is equally true that promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government or a public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority to make. "in the instant case in view of para 24 of the order, the Government of U. P. has no power to grant exemption from levy on rice except with the concurrence of the Central Government. When the State Government announced its policy vide its order dated 31-10-1991 granting complete exemption to the new rice mills established after 1-10-1991, there was no concurrence of the Central Government. Although the State Government has written to the Central Government for its concurrence but it was not received till the end of the year 1991-92. When the State Government announced its policy vide its order dated 31-10-1991 granting complete exemption to the new rice mills established after 1-10-1991, there was no concurrence of the Central Government. Although the State Government has written to the Central Government for its concurrence but it was not received till the end of the year 1991-92. In the next year (1992-93) the State Government reiterated its policy of exempting the new rice mills from levy and, therefore, it sent another request to the Central Government for its concurrence and it was only after the concurrence was received from the Central Government that the State Government issued the order dated 16-12-1992 providing for exemption from levy on the graded basis to the rice mills established after 1-10-1991. It is said to be in accordance with the concurrence given by the Central Government. As the State Government alone was not competent under law to grant exemption as is contained in its order dated 31-10-1991, it was ineffective, because under clause 24 of the order of 1985 it has no legal authority to grant exemption without the concurrence of the Central Government. Such promise cannot be enforced by the petitioner, because it was contrary to the law and was outside the authority of the State Government. What is enforceable is the order dated 16-12-1992 issued by the State Government with the concurrence of the Central Government granting exemption to new rice mills on graded basis for a period of five years. By this order the earlier orders of the State Government dated 31-10-1991 and 30-9-1992 were modified to the extent mentioned therein. Therefore, the first contention of the petitioner is devoid of merit. Petitioner can, however, claim exemption from levy only in accordance with the Government order dated 16-12-1992 if he satisfies the conditions referred to in the Government order dated 14-9-1992. ( 8 ) IT is admitted that petitioner does not satisfy the first condition, namely, purchase of the land after 1-10-1991 for establishing the new rice mill, laid down by the Government order dated 14-9-1992. Petitioner, as such, has challenged the said condition on the ground that it is illegal. While granting exemption under para 24 of the order, Government exercises a statutory power. It can grant exemption under the said provision for good and valid reasons. Petitioner, as such, has challenged the said condition on the ground that it is illegal. While granting exemption under para 24 of the order, Government exercises a statutory power. It can grant exemption under the said provision for good and valid reasons. Granting exemption from levy to new rice mills is in the public interest, because it gives an incentive for establishing new industries, which provide new avenues for employment. Though the policy of the Government in granting such exemption is in public interest but the method for achieving it by laying down criteria must have nexus with the object intended to be achieved. As held by the Supreme Court in ramana v. The International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628 , every State action, whether it be under the authority of law or in exercise of executive power must be based on some rational and relevant principles and must not be guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. Therefore, the conditions prescribed for exemption must have nexus with the policy/object sought to be achieved. When the object of granting exemption is industrialisation and opening new avenues for employment, what is relevant is the establishment of new mills and for this purpose placing orders for new plant and machinery after 1-10-1991 is fully justified. Ownership of the land for establishing a new mill is also a relevant consideration; but the date of its purchase has no relevance to the object to be achieved. If a person has his own land for establishing a new mill, the date of its purchase is absolutely immaterial. Such a condition is thus not relevant and is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed partly. The condition No. 1 laid down by the Government order dated 14-9-1992, namely, purchase of land for establishing the rice mill after 1-10-1991, is quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners rice mill for granting exemption from levy in accordance with law. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly. .