JUDGMENT : Pradipta Ray, J. - The writ petitioner, who claims to be an unemployed youth, proceeded to set up a biscuit manufacturing unit in the name and style "Bipin Food Products" in the village Kankadahad in the district of Dhenkanal in the year 1984. The said proposed unit was registered with the District Industries Centre (in short "D. I. C."), Dhenkanal, under Registration No. 15/05/02927, dated February 15, 1984. The writ petitioner submitted a proposal before the D. I. C. which recommended the same to the Orissa State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation"), Dhenkanal branch for sanction of a term loan and also to the Indian Overseas Bank, Dhenkanal branch for providing the necessary working capital. Upon a consideration of the petitioner's proposal and his application the Corporation agreed in principle to provide him a term loan of Rs. 1,96,000 subject to the terms and conditions as mentioned in the Corporation's letter dated August 6, 1985 (annexure-2). One of the conditions was that the petitioner would have to satisfy the Corporation regarding sanction of working capital loan from, any commercial bank before disbursement. It was also expressly mentioned in the Corporation's letter that the said intimation did not constitute a commitment on the part of the Corporation at that stage. 2. As already stated the Indian Overseas Bank, Dhenkanal branch, was approached for providing the working capital. On January 17, 1987, in a joint meeting of the officers of the bank, Corporation, D. I. C. and the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner was asked to fulfil the conditions mentioned in the minutes for further consideration for providing the working capital. In the meantime in anticipation that he would get the necessary loan from the Corporation and the working capital from the bank, the petitioner started constructing a shed for the purpose of setting up a semi-mechanised biscuit manufacturing unit. It appears that the petitioner also in the meantime made arrangements to furnish collateral security and to comply with other formalities to obtain working capital from the bank. 3. It appears that the petitioner also in the meantime made arrangements to furnish collateral security and to comply with other formalities to obtain working capital from the bank. 3. It appears from the minutes of the proceeding of the intensive campaign for promotion of special target group industries above tiny sector held in the office of the General Manager, D. I. C. Dhenkanal, on December 19, 1988, that the writ petitioner could not get sanction for working capital from the Indian Overseas Bank, Dhenkanal and that the Joint General Manager of the Corporation advised the writ petitioner to examine the possibility of the unit to be established either in a rented house or in a closed biscuit factory. It appears from the said minutes that the writ petitioner, however, did not agree to the proposal on the ground that he had already constructed a shed upto plinth level for setting up the proposed factory and because of such disagreement it was decided that the bank and the Corporation would again reconsider the case. By memo No. 1567 of 1989-90; dated October 30, 1989, the Corporation gave a new proposal to the writ petitioner to take up any one of the seized units mentioned in the memo instead of going in for a new unit. By letter dated November 1, 1989, the writ petitioner communicated his refusal to accept the new proposal sent by the Corporation. Ultimately, by letter dated August 9, 1990, the Corporation cancelled the original proposal of the writ petitioner (annexure-9). 4. It has been stated in the counter affidavit affirmed by the branch manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Dhenkanal, that the said bank found the proposal of the writ petitioner not viable and returned the same to the D. I. C., Dhenkanal, on December 15, 1987. It has been further stated that although the proposal was subsequently responsored on July 19, 1988, the same was again rejected by the same regional office of the said bank on February 15, 1989, in view of the adverse report from the Corporation regarding its viability and that the petitioner received back all the papers on March 19, 1989, from the Indian Overseas Bank. 5. 5. From the aforesaid facts it appears that the Indian Overseas Bank never agreed or promised to give working capital to the writ petitioner and as such the condition on which the Corporation agreed to give loan was also not satisfied. 6. It appears that the proposal of the writ petitioner was again revived in 1993. The proposal was sponsored by the D. I. C., Dhenkanal, on November 12, 1993, and forwarded to the UCO Bank of Dhenkanal for consideration of the proposal (annexure A-3). A joint meeting was held on January 13, 1994. In the said meeting it was decided that the Corporation would sanction a term loan of Rs. 1,50,000 afresh, prepare an appraisal report, send the same to the UCO Bank, Dhenkanal and upon examination of the viability on the basis of the appraisal report prepared by the Corporation, the UCO Bank will sanction the working capital to the extent of Rs. 40,000. The petitioner himself was present in the said meeting. It thus appears that the original proposal of 1985, came to an end and a new proposal sponsored in November 15, 1993, was being considered. 7. Another joint meeting was held on February 7, 1994, where the economic viability of the proposed project was doubted. It was agreed that the petitioner would submit a fresh viability report along with the market survey report for further perusal of all concerned within 15 days (annexure C-3). Another joint meeting was held on August 28, 1994, where the proposal was found to be not economically viable (annexure D-3). The Corporation by its letter dated September 26, 1994, intimated the petitioner about its refusal to accept his proposal. It appears that the UCO Bank ultimately dropped the proposal and by its letter dated January 5, 1995, the UCO Bank officially intimated the writ petitioner about its inability to accept his proposal. 8. The writ petitioner has thereafter filed this writ application for directing the Corporation and the bank to provide loan and working capital as originally sanctioned in 1985. The petitioner's claim in the writ petition is based on the principle of promissory estoppel. 9. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties and upon a careful consideration of the materials on record, we are unable to accept the plea of promissory estoppel. The petitioner's claim in the writ petition is based on the principle of promissory estoppel. 9. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties and upon a careful consideration of the materials on record, we are unable to accept the plea of promissory estoppel. It is clear that the original proposal of 1985, came to an end and a fresh proposal was put forward in 1993. Moreover the materials on record do not indicate that at any point of time there was any unqualified or absolute promise on the part of the Corporation or the concerned bank to provide loan or working capital. The basic ingredient for invoking the principle of promissory estoppel is the existence of an unqualified, unambiguous and unconditional promise. The said basic ingredient being absent we are unable to entertain any plea of promissory estoppel. 10. Before us, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the biscuit manufacturing unit as proposed by the petitioner is viable and the petitioner is confident of making it a success. Considering the fact that the petitioner is an educated unemployed youth and he has already invested some amount for establishment of a biscuit manufacturing unit, we feel inclined to give the writ petitioner a further opportunity of establishing the viability of his proposal before the concerned authorities in accordance with the prescribed procedure. We give the petitioner the liberty of submitting a fresh proposal supported by a feasibility/possibility/viability report prepared by any competent qualified person before the D. I. C, Dhenkanal, by April 30, 1997. The D. 1. C., Dhenkanal, will submit its recommendation to the Corporation within three weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal. If the proposal is recommended by the D.I.C., the Corporation will consider the same after giving opportunity of hearing and if the proposal is accepted, it will forward its recommendation to the UCO Bank, Dhenkanal, by July 15, 1997. The bank will consider the proposal and take a final decision holding joint meetings within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the proposal/ recommendation from the Corporation. 11. With the above directions we dispose of the present writ application. P.C. Naik, J. 12. I agree.