S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ application the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of or to the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to grant central subsidy to the extent of Rs. 11,38,952/- purported to be in terms of the letter dated 28. 9. 89 as contained to Annexure 'a' to the writ application. ( 2 ) THE fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The Director of Industries, Andaman and Nicobar Administration issued a booklet specifying facilities and incentives for the development of small scale industries in Andaman and Nicobar Islands clause 5 whereof states of grants of central investment subsidy. Admittedly, a scheme for payment of such central investment subsidy was to be made on the basis of the investments at the rate of 25% on fixed investment to new industrial units and also to existing industrial units taking up substantial expansion, which was made admissible to both small scale units as also large scale sectors. Allegedly, the petitioner, who was at the material time owner of a hotel situate in this Island, spent the aforementioned amount. It thereafter filed a claim for grant of such central investment subsidy. ( 3 ) IT appears that by a letter dated 28. 9. 89, as contained in Annexure 'a' the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, recommended the cases of 32 units for grant of such subsidy to the Under Secretary of the Government of India, name of the petitioner appearing at serial No. 32 thereof. However, from the letter dated 21st May 1990, issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India and addressed to the Secretary, Industries Department, it appears that such subsidy was payable to such industries in relation whereto projects have been approved by the Approval Committee on or before 30th September 1988. Admittedly, no such approval of the amount was given by the State Level Committee prior to that date. It appears that on 26. 2. 89, the State Level Committee held its sitting and made recommendation for grant of such subsidy, inter alia, on the ground that the hotel of the petitioner was set up prior to 30th September 1988, and thus its case is covered by the aforementioned letter dated 28th September 1989. It appears that on 26. 2. 89, the State Level Committee held its sitting and made recommendation for grant of such subsidy, inter alia, on the ground that the hotel of the petitioner was set up prior to 30th September 1988, and thus its case is covered by the aforementioned letter dated 28th September 1989. In the said letter 12 was stated:"all the 32 cases covered in the recommended statement relates to projects approved by the State Level Committee based on the SBI registration/dctd registration and hence these units are eligible for grant of central Investment subsidy since all the units have invested before 30. 9. 88 and have also started production before 30. 9. 88. In this regard, it is also mentioned that such practice of treating registered units as units with approved project is being followed in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and the Union Territory, has in fact, disbursed subsidy to Industrial Units for the period of September to December 1989 on the above analogy. "despite the same, however, the amount was not paid. ( 4 ) MR. Roy appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that keeping in view the stand taken by the respondent administration there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner was entitled to the same, inasmuch as, the competent authority had recommended for payment of such central investment subsidy. Mr. Roy has drawn my attention to various orders passed in a case filed by one Sandal Resorts Limited v Union of India which are contained in Annexure 'd' series to this writ application for showing that similarly situate industry allegedly filed a writ application questioning the cut off date for such approval for payment of such subsidy as 30th September 1988 and directions have been made by this court to the Central Government for payment of such amount. Mr. Roy has further drawn my attention to a letter dated 7th July 1994, which is contained in Annexure 'section-2' to the supplementary affidavit, from a perusal whereof it appears that a contempt application was filed as against Union of India and its officers whereafter the said amount of subsidy has been paid to the aforementioned Sandal Resort Limited. The question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to such Central investment subsidy could have been considered only by the Central Government in terns of its own policy decision. The question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to such Central investment subsidy could have been considered only by the Central Government in terns of its own policy decision. Payment of such Central investment subsidy was not automatic, but subject to the conditions laid down under the scheme. This court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could direct the Union of India to pay such Central investment subsidy only upon invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel. As is well known, doctrine of promissory estoppel can be taken recourse to if the petitioner satisfies the Court that: (1) express promise had been made, (2) that he has altered his position relying on or on the basis of such promise and (3) on equity also, he is entitled to a direction upon the respondents to fulfill such promise. No statement has been made in the writ application to the effect that the petitioner has altered its position pursuant to or on the basis of any promise allegedly made by Union of India. It may be noticed that admittedly, the local administration is not the competent authority to pay such subsidy, and the State Level Committee is merely a recommending body. The petitioner's case for grant of such subsidy, therefore, could have been considered only by the Central Government. As noticed hereinbefore, one of the conditions for grant of such subsidy was that approval of the State Level Committee therefor should have been made on or before 30th September 1988. The question as to whether a direction for payment of such subsidy can be made after expiry of the said date does not fall for consideration in the instant case. Inasmuch as, as indicated hereinbefore, the petitioner in the writ application had not stated the foundational facts, namely, the promise had been made to them by the Union of India and they have altered their position relying on or on the basis thereof. Reference in this connection may be made to Messrs. Sone Vanaspati Limited v. State of Bihar reported in 1995 (1) Patna Law Journal report 2. Moreover Central subsidy is granted for giving incentives to the enterpreneurs and to make any undue profit or unjust gain therefrom. ( 5 ) MR. Reference in this connection may be made to Messrs. Sone Vanaspati Limited v. State of Bihar reported in 1995 (1) Patna Law Journal report 2. Moreover Central subsidy is granted for giving incentives to the enterpreneurs and to make any undue profit or unjust gain therefrom. ( 5 ) MR. Roy, however, has drawn my attention to the statements made in paragraph 16 of the writ application wherein it has been stated that the petitioner invested considerable amount of money partly from their own resources and partly from bank borrowings acting on the promise, as aforesaid. But said statements have not been verified, and thus no credence can be given thereto. Furthermore, in a supplementary affidavit filed today in terms of an order dated 14th June 1995, the petitioner has categorically stated that it has sold the hotel in question to the Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited, the land measuring more or less 4. 49 hects, with buildings, structures known as Andaman Beach Resorts at Corbyn's Cove, for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- in terms of a registered deed of conveyance dated 20th April 1994. According to the petitioner itself, it needed some expansion of the hotel in question. The petitioner has now transferred its right, title and interest of the such properties in favour of the aforementioned Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited. The petitioner thus must have obtained consideration for the constructions raised by it for the purpose expanding its hotel premises. The petitioner cannot be permitted to have the benefit of Central investment subsidy from the Central Government over again when he is presumed to have recovered the costs incurred by it from its vendee. In this situation, I am of the opinion that even if the doctrine of promissory estoppel has any application, the equity demands that such promise may not be enforced, inasmuch as, the petitioner, by reason of the aforementioned transfer, has duly recovered the expenditure incurred, if any, for expansion of its hotel premises. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this application, which is accordingly dismissed, but keeping in view of the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.