Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Cr. R.K. Marathia, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The writ petition has been preferred with the prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, directing the respondents especially respondent No. 2 to place the work order for manufacture and supply of PSC mono block sleepers to the petitioner for use by respondent No. 2 in view of the petitioner unit being ancillary/dependent unit of respondent No, 2, and for issuance of further directors restraining the respondents from awarding the work orders for manufacture and supply of PSC mono block sleepers to any other party in exclusion of the petitioner unit. 3. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was issued a permanent registration certificate for manufacture of pre-stressed poles and beams by the Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority (in short the BIADAI), by order dated 2-12-98. In view of shortage of orders, the petitioner company in due course became sick and became unviable. In an effort to rejuvenate the factory, the petitioner started making attempts to diversify, and prepared a project report for manufacture and supply of items like pre-stressed concrete mono block railway sleepers. The demand of Bokaro Steel Plant (in short the BSP) is more than 10,000 pieces per annum and, therefore, it approached the BSP. At the meeting of P.C.C. held on 13-2-95, 14-3-96 and 8-6-96 (Annexure-3) the BSP took the following decisions with respect to the petitioner. PW CASES FOR DEPENDENT STATUS Approved PCC Poles and Railway M/s Patliputra Pre-stressed Pvt. Ltd. Sleepers with dependent status subject to the condition that BSP would take the supply of Railway sleeper only after the approval of quality by Railway first and certificate railway to that effect. The petitioner further states in paragraph-23 of the writ petition that in order to diversify and rejuvenate the sick unit, the petitioner approached the apex body of the Directorate of Industries and was declared a sick unit vide letter data 19-1-98 (Annexure-6). It is manifest form the letter dated 14-1-1-98 (Annexure-11), issued by the Department of Industries to the BSP that the State Government is also quite concerned about the petitioners industrial and commercial problems and has requested the BSP to sympathetically consider the petitioners request for purchase of PSB mono block sleepers. It is manifest form the letter dated 14-1-1-98 (Annexure-11), issued by the Department of Industries to the BSP that the State Government is also quite concerned about the petitioners industrial and commercial problems and has requested the BSP to sympathetically consider the petitioners request for purchase of PSB mono block sleepers. The petitioner further states that as per the letter dated 26-5-98 (Annexure?), from the RITES, a specialised body of the Indian Railways, to the petitioner, it clearly fulfils the conditions of the BSP vide Annexure-3 and quoted in paragraph-hereinabove. 4 Wrapping up his argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his writ petition only to the extent of grant of ancillary status, and gave up all the remaining reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. He submitted that there is difference between ancillary status and dependent status. The former implies that 60 % of the products of the petitioner company shall be purchased by the BSP, and the petitioner will be free to market the balance 40% of its products in general market. On the other hand, dependent status is not of much consequence. It only implies that the BSP recognises the existence of the manufacturer without any assurance for purchase of the items manufactured by it. 5. Mr. R.K. Maratbia, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted in reply that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for implementation of an enforceable right, nor any particular order is sought to be challenged. The recognised grounds of attack in writ jurisdiction like promissory estoppel, discrimination, mala fides, or arbitrariness have not been raised by the petitioner. He submitted that the writ petition on this count is not maintainable. He further submitted that the writ petition suffers from multiplicity of reliefs and disjointed causes of action. He further submitted that BIADA is the authority to grant ancillary status, and not the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (in short the SAIL"). Relying on the order dated 7-5-99, passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1910 of 1988 (R), which was filed in this Court at the instance of the present writ petitioner, he submitted that it has been clearly held that the petitioners prayer for a writ of mandamus to BIADA for grant of ancillary status has been held not to be maintainable on the ground that the petitioner has no enforceable right in writ jurisdiction. He further submitted that the petitioner has not really laid the factual foundation for prayer for on appropriate direction to the respondent-authorities for grant of ancillary status. Relying on para 6 of the counter-affidavit, he submitted that the aforesaid resolution (Annexure-3) relates to grant of dependent status and not ancillary status, which is also dependent on fulfillment of a number of conditions by the petitioner which has not been done so far. In any case, the respondents are not bound to grant ancillary status to the petitioner even after all the conditions are fulfilled and, for that matter even after grant of ancillary status it is not found to give supply orders, because the question of giving orders for supply of the items in question will entirely depend on the commercial needs of the respondents. In any case, the petitioner has not so far fulfilled any one of the conditions required for grant of dependent status, let alone ancillary status. He further submitted that the petitioner is misreading Annexure-7. If truly read, it conveys that RITES has asked the petitioner company to get the samples of sand, store chips, and cement tested from an outside recognised laboratory prior to taking up production. The letter further says that quality of PSC sleepers and process of manufacture shall be checked by RITES after inspection/testing of the product. According to the respondents, the petitioner has not so far done the trial production and no quality control has so far taken place so as to be checked by RITES. He further submitted that the steel Industry all over the country is passing through a period of great stress for the absence of lack of market. Relying on the averments made in paragraph-6 (iv) of the counter-affidavit, he submitted that BSP has riot issued any tender for supply of the item in question after 26-5-98. Relying on the order dated 2-12-97, passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 389/97 (R) Mahalakshmi Udyog V/s. SAIL, he submitted that it has been held that the issues like the one being raised in the present writ petition cannot be raised in the writ jurisdiction. Relying on the order dated 2-12-97, passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 389/97 (R) Mahalakshmi Udyog V/s. SAIL, he submitted that it has been held that the issues like the one being raised in the present writ petition cannot be raised in the writ jurisdiction. It may be stated that the said L.P.A. arose out of the order dated 4-9-97, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3441/96 (R.) Mahalakshmi Udyog V/s. SAIL, whereby the writ petition was dismissed, and upheld in the L.P.A. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that SAIL is the competent authority to grant ancillary status, and not BIADA. He further submitted that the scope of the aforesaid order dated 7-5-99, passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1910 of 1998 (R), was entirely different, whereas the present writ petition is now confined to grant of ancillary status to the petitioner. C.W.J.C. No. 1910 of 1998 (R) related to grant of permanent registration certificate with regard to Railway Sleepers by BIADA. He further submitted that the grant of dependent status is meaningless for the petitioner, and the relief relating to grant of ancillary status would alone be meaningful. Wrapping up his argument, he submitted that the principle of promissory estoppel is clearly attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is clearly of *he view that this writ petition is not maintainable on various counts. Firstly, the petitioner has no right which can be enforced in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has no cause of action against the respondents. It is manifest from a plain reading of the aforesaid resolution marked Annexure-3 that the same relates to grant of dependent status. The entire argument of the petitioner is based on Annexure-3 read with Annexure-C. Therefore, the prayer in respect of ancillary status is clearly beyond the frame of the writ petition. Secondly, none of the conditions specified in Annexure-3 and Annexure-7 have so far been fulfilled. Thirdly, the writ petition suffers from vagueness and is fit to be rejected on this count also. The foundational facts relating to the status of ancillary status in contra distinction to dependent status has not been laid in the writ petition. In any case, as held above. Annexure-3 read with Annexure-7 relate to dependent status, and not ancillary status. Thirdly, the writ petition suffers from vagueness and is fit to be rejected on this count also. The foundational facts relating to the status of ancillary status in contra distinction to dependent status has not been laid in the writ petition. In any case, as held above. Annexure-3 read with Annexure-7 relate to dependent status, and not ancillary status. In spite of the clear direction conveyed by Annexure-7, the petitioner has not placed any evidence on record to show that the samples of sand, stone chips, and cement have already been tested from an outside recognised laboratory and whereafter trial production has commenced, nor is there any evidence on record to indicate that the petitioner has placed before the KITES PSC sleepers for inspection and determination of quality. Another contention relating to enforcement of promissory estoppel by way of reply is also wholly without substance, inasmuch as the foundational facts have not been laid down in the writ petition. In any case, no case has been made out during the course of oral argument for enforcement of the principle of promissory estoppel. This Court, therefore, is convinced that the principle of promissory estoppel is not attracted in the present case because I have not been shown any representation or promise made by the respondents relating to ancillary status pursuant to which the petitioner had set up their industry and changed the position to the petitioners detriment. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondents relating to disjointed causes of action need not detain us, inasmuch a the learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments clearly stated that he confines the writ petition to the relief relating to grant of ancillary status alone. Equally relevant is the statement made by the respondents in para 6 (iv)of the counter-affidavit that the respondents have not issued any tender for supply of the items in question after 26-5-98. The absence of demand, therefore, clearly stares in the face of the petitioner. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents correctly submitted that the issues relating to grant of ancillary status or dependant status are essentially commercial decisions depending upon the perception of the respondents as to its present and future needs. This Court is not expected to examine the propriety or commercial viability of such decisions. A writ petition is not maintainable for such a relief. 9. This Court is not expected to examine the propriety or commercial viability of such decisions. A writ petition is not maintainable for such a relief. 9. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable on various counts. The writ petition is also dismissed on the ground of vagueness of pleadings. The petitioner has no enforceable right for grant of ancillary status. The issues raised in the writ petition are essentially commercial decisions. This Court is not inclined to examine, and interfere with, such commercial decisions. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.