Judgment B. P. Singh, Dharmpal Sinha, JJ. 1. There are as many as 56 petitioners in the instant writ petition, some of whom are residents of the locality and some are employees of the hospital owned, possessed and managed by the Managing Committee of the Trust, of which petitioner No.1 is a trustee. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ/order or direction commanding the respondents to take over the Mahanth Darshan das Hospital with all its rights, libilities, appurtenances as well as the services of the existing staff under the provision of the Provincialisation of roads and Hospitals Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The State of Bihar has opposed this writ application and has pleaded that the Government of Bihar do not propose to take over this Hospital. 2. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the State of Bihar cannot now take the plea that it is not interested in taking over the said hospital having regard to the following facts : (i) The noting in the office file would show that an order has already been issued for taking over the College after Cabinet approval, (ii) The Board of Control of Shri Krishna Medical college and Hospital, Muzaffarpur had made an arrangement with the College in question for imparting training to its students in Rural Health and Preventive Medicine. The College having taken advantage of this arrangement, the State Government cannot back out from the promise made as that would amount to approbating and reprobating, which is not permissible under the law. (iii) The facts of this case would establish that there was a promise made by the State Government to take over the Hospital pursuant to which the Trust had acted. Therefore, on the principle of promissory estoppel, the state Government is prevented from refusing to take over the Hospital. 3. The Provincialisation of Roads and Hospitals Act, 1947, no doubt, vests in the State Government the power to take over by notification, with effect from such date as may be specified therein, any hospital or road which is vested in, or is under the control or administration of the Commissioners of any municipality, any District Board or any person or trustee etc. and such hospital, if taken over, shall be vested in the State Government subject to the provisions of Sec.6 of the Act, which provides for payment of compensation. The proviso of Sec.3 provides that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to apply to any hospital, which is vested in, or is under the control or administration of any religious or philanthropic mission. Sec.4 further provides that all endowments or funds which appertained to, or were appropriated specifically for the purposes of any hospital, immediately before it was vested in the State government under Sec.3, shall be vested in the State Government for those purposes, and continue to be applied to the same purposes as those to which they were lawfully applicable immediately before the date when the endowment or fund concerned was so vested. 4. It is, therefore, apparent that section 3 vests in the State Government the power to take over a hospital under the Act by issuance of a notification, subject to such conditions and exceptions as may be prescribed, and having regard to the provisions of Sec.6 of the Act. There is no legal duty cast upon the Government to take over all the Hospitals. Only in appropriate cases the Act enables the State Government to take over a particular Hospital. 5. Now law has been shown to us casting upon the State Government an obligation to take over the Hospital, so that a writ of mandamus can be issued to the State Government to fulfil such obligation by taking over the hospital belonging to the Trust. Counsel submitted that the record would show that the matter was under consideration of the State Government and the same was considered at different levels. In paragraph 11 (2) of the" writ petition, it is stated that at all levels the proposal to take over the hospital was strongly recommended; but the Chief Minister in a most irrational and arbitrary manner dis-ap-proved of the take over. This position, according to the petitioners, is manifest from the extract of the notes of the different functionaries recorded in the different files maintained by the State government. Extract of the notes have been annexed as Annexure-7 to this writ petition. This position, according to the petitioners, is manifest from the extract of the notes of the different functionaries recorded in the different files maintained by the State government. Extract of the notes have been annexed as Annexure-7 to this writ petition. It thus appears that the case of the petitioners is that the government at a later stage did not agree to take over the College, since the proposal was turned down by the chief Minister. 6. Counsel sought to argue on the basis of the extracts of the notes filed as Annexure-7 that in fact the matter relating to take over of the Hospital was considered by the Cabinet and its approval was obtained, whereafter a government order was issued. He submits that in appropriate cases this court can direct production of the relevant notification. We could have considered directing the State Government to produce before us the necessary notification, if at least there was a clear averment in the writ petition that a notification in fact was issued on any date by the State Government, purporting to have been issued under the orders of the Governor. No such notification or copy thereof has been produced, nor particulars supplied and the clear pleading is that the proposal was turned down by the Chief Minister. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to consider the submissions urged on behalf of the petitioners that the State government should be directed to produce the relevant notification before this court, or that the Government should be directed to implement the decision of the Cabinet, or that a notification issued in the name of the governor can only be amended in the same manner in which it was issued. 7. The stand of the Advocate general is that no decision was ever taken by the State Govt. for taking over the Hospital, although the matter had been considered at different levels. 8. It was then submitted that on the principles of promissory estoppel, the State Government should not be permitted to plead that it cannot be compelled to take over the Hospital. For invoking the principle of promissory estoppel the petitioners must establish that a clear representation for take over was made by the State government to the Trust, and pursuant to the said representation, the Trust has acted in a manner detrimenting to its interest. For invoking the principle of promissory estoppel the petitioners must establish that a clear representation for take over was made by the State government to the Trust, and pursuant to the said representation, the Trust has acted in a manner detrimenting to its interest. We have not been shown any decision of the State Government, or any representation made by the state Government to the Trust, for taking over the Hospital. The material placed on the record only establishes that the matter regarding take over was under consideration; but no assurance or promise was ever held out. Moreover, the Trust has done nothing to its detriment pursuant to any representation, and cannot, therefore, invoke the principle of promissory estoppel. 9. It was then submitted that Shri krishna Medical College and Hospital, muzaffarpur, is a Government Medical college and the Board of Control of the said College had entered into an arrangement with the Hospital in question for imparting training to the students of Shri Krishna Medical College in a particular subject. Assuming it to be so, this does not amount to a promise, attracting the principle of promissory estoppel, to take over the college. Such an arrangement may be made by any Medical College with a hospital to provide practical training to its students. We find nothing in the notes (Annexure-7) to infer that any representation was made by the State government to the effect that if the hospital in question allowed the facility of practical training to the students of Shri Krishna Medical College and Hospital, the said Hospital will be taken over by the State Government. The arrangement was between the board of Control of Shri Krishna medical College and the Hospital in question, and it does not amount to any promise made by the State government TO take over the Hospital. 10. It was also submitted that the trustee had, in fact, executed a registered deed of gift making a gift of all assets of the College to the State government. Learned Advocate general stated that the Government had not accepted the gift. We find that under the Act, if a College is to be taken over, it is not necessary for an institution to make a gift. On the issuance of a notification contemplated by the Act, necessary consequences follow under Sec.4 thereof, and the assets etc. Learned Advocate general stated that the Government had not accepted the gift. We find that under the Act, if a College is to be taken over, it is not necessary for an institution to make a gift. On the issuance of a notification contemplated by the Act, necessary consequences follow under Sec.4 thereof, and the assets etc. vest in the State of Bihar by operation of law. In any event, in the instant case, since the Hospital belongs to a Trust, it may have been considered advisable to execute a deed of gift, because apparently the Act does not permit the State to take over a Hospital run by a Trust of purely charitable nature. The State Government having not decided to take over the Hospital, the trust cannot compel the State to take it over merely because it has executed a deed of gift in its favour. 11. For all these reasons, we find that there is no merit in this writ petition. The petitioners cannot compel the state Government to take over the hospital in question, and if the State government has decided not to take over the said Hospital, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State government to take over the same under the provisions of the Act. 12. We may only mention at this stage that when the matter regarding take over of the College was being considered, a question had arisen as to what would be the cut off date for taking over the services of the employees of the Hospital. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter had come up before this court earlier by way of a writ petition in which it was decided that the cut off date for take over of the services of the employees of the Hospital shall be the date of take over of the Hospital by the State Government. 13. The judgment of this court also does not help the petitioners. The cut off date for take over of the services of the employees, as decided by this court, shall be the date of take over of the College under the Act. It, therefore, logically follows that if the Hospital is not taken over at all, no question of taking over the services of the employees of the Hospital will arise. The cut off date for take over of the services of the employees, as decided by this court, shall be the date of take over of the College under the Act. It, therefore, logically follows that if the Hospital is not taken over at all, no question of taking over the services of the employees of the Hospital will arise. The decision of this Court proceeded on the factual assumption that the college was to be taken over under the act. The factual assumption on which the judgment proceeded is shown to be non-existent, since the College was never taken over. The question, therefore, of taking over the services of the employees of the Hospital does not arise. No doubt, if the Government in future decides to take over the Hospital under the provisions of the Act, the employees of the Hospital may take advantage of the principle laid down in the said judgment, if such a question arises at all. 14. We, therefore, find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 15. We have also perused the order of this Court dated 17-2-1997, whereby notice had been issued to Mr. A. N. P. Sinha, Additional Commissioner, Health, calling upon him to show cause why a contempt proceeding be not initiated against him. The said additional Commissioner-cum-Special secretary, Department of Health has filed his show cause. We have perused the show cause. Sri AN. P. Sinha had filed a counter-affidavit annexing therewith Annexure-Y/1 dated 5th Dec. , 1996. Which is a notification issued by the State Government returning the lands gifted by the Trust to facilitate take over of the Hospital. The notification purports to have been issued pursuant to the order of the Governor. It was sought to be contended before this court that the said order was not issued under the orders of the Governor, since the matter had not been placed before the Cabinet and therefore a misrepresentation had been made by the officer concerned. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the stand taken by the state Government that there was no decision ever taken for taking over the hospital in question, we do not consider it necessary to proceed further in the contempt matter. In fact the notification Annexure-Y/1 purports to have been issued under order of the governor. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the stand taken by the state Government that there was no decision ever taken for taking over the hospital in question, we do not consider it necessary to proceed further in the contempt matter. In fact the notification Annexure-Y/1 purports to have been issued under order of the governor. Its legality or validity is a different question altogether. The contempt proceeding is dropped. Order Accordingly.