C. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions, common questions of law with little variation of facts arise for determination and as such they are being disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) JABALPUR Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'authority') made advertisement in the Newspapers on 19-3-1991 inviting applications from educational institutions for allotment of the land in its various schemes. Petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement submitted their applications. Petitioner Adhartal Shiksha Samiti i. e. , petitioner in W. P. No. 1263/96 was allocated 1,07,880 sq. ft. of land for construction of a High School. Petitioner in W. P. No. 1335/96 i. e. , Guru Gobind Singh Educational Society was allocated 1,24,630 sq. ft. of land of construction of High School. Petitioner in W. P. No. 1346/96 i. e. , Motiram Mandhyani was allocated 1,24,750 sq. ft. of land for construction of High School and College. Petitioner in W. P. No. 2619/96 i. e. , Shri Ram Mandir Shiksha Samiti was initially allocated 60,000 sq. ft. of land which was later on enhanced to 1,55,000 sq. ft. for construction of a school. Petitioner No. 2 in W. P. No. 571/97 i. e. , Jabalpur Thoak Vastra Vikreta Sangh was allocated 93,670 sq. ft. of land for construction of a High School. Petitioner in W. P. No. 574/98 i. e. , Shanti Nagar Bal Vikas Shiksha Samiti was allocated 45,600 sq. ft. of land for construction of a Middle School. Petitioner in W. P. No. 2443/96 i. e. , Ranjhi Vivekanand Shiksha Vikas Samiti was allocated 13,993 sq. ft. of land for construction of a school. Petitioner in W. P. No. 3922/99 i. e. , Sanjeevani Nagar Kalyan Samiti was allocated 6300 sq. ft. of land for construction of a community hall. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the terms of allotment, petitioners were allowed to make construction over 40% of the area allocated to them and they were required to pay premium at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. , limited to the area over which they have been allowed to make construction. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the terms of allotment, petitioners were allowed to make construction over 40% of the area allocated to them and they were required to pay premium at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. , limited to the area over which they have been allowed to make construction. Petitioners were also required to make payment of 50% of the premium amount within 15 days of the allotment i. e. by 31-7-1991 except in case of Sindhu Samaj i. e. , petitioner No. 2 in W. P. No. 1346/96 which was given time till 15-9-1991 to make payment of 50% of the premium amount. Rest of the premium amount was to be deposited in six monthly instalments. Petitioner Sindhu Samaj and petitioner Shanti Nagar Bal Vikas Shiksha Samiti had paid up the full premium amount. Petitioner Shri Ram Mandir Shiksha Samiti had not made payment of 50% of the premium amount before 31-7-1991 and had paid the premium amount about 5 months later than the date fixed for making payment. It has also paid the first instalment of Rs. 38,750/ -. The Jabalpur Thoak Vastra Vikreta Sangh paid only a sum of Rs. 1,82,150/- after about 11 months and it has not made any further payment. Guru Gobind Singh Educational Society had made payment of the premium amount of Rs. 2,49,260 on 13-8-1991 and had not made any payment thereafter. ( 4 ) GOVERNMENT led by Bhartiya Janta Party was in power during this period. State Government by its order dated 27-9-1994 constituted one man committee of Mr. G. Jagatpati, former Chief Secretary of the State for going into the question of allotment of land made by the Municipal Corporation/municipality Special Area Development Authority, Town Development Authority, Town Improvement Trust and M. P. Housing Board, In view of decision of the State Government, Committee had gone into the question of allotments made in favour of these petitioners. The Committee found that the Jabalpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'jda') instead of considering the prayer of the petitioners for allotment of land by itself, constituted a sub-committee which in its opinion, is illegal. The Committee further found that without any justification, the JDA has fixed the premium at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. The Committee found that the Jabalpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'jda') instead of considering the prayer of the petitioners for allotment of land by itself, constituted a sub-committee which in its opinion, is illegal. The Committee further found that without any justification, the JDA has fixed the premium at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. and that too, for 40% of the total area allocated to the petitioners and this has put the JDA to a loss of Rs. 4,06,57,107/ -. The Committee further found that the amount of ground rent charged from the petitioners was on the lower side and this has put the Authority to a loss of Rs. 8,13,062/- per year. The Committee further found that in matters of allotment, the then Chairman of the Authority acted as if he was more or less a one member authority. The Committee further found that the decision of the sub-committee for allotments of land in favour of the petitioners were not placed before the JDA for ratifying at any stage. ( 5 ) AFTER receipt of the report of the Committee the JDA issued notice to the petitioners stating therein that the allotments made in their favour are illegal and void as the same has been made in contravention of Rules 19 and 20 of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Vikasit Bhoomiyo, Griho, Bhavno Tatha Anya Sanrachaon Ka Vyapan Niyam 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rule' ). The JDA wrote to the petitioners that under Rule 19 of the Rules, land could have been allocated only with the previous approval of the State Govt. , but approval of the State Govt. , was not obtained before making allotments. In the show-cause notice, it was further pointed out the loss; the JDA has to suffer on account of fixation of premium at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. and that too only in relation to 40% of the area allocated to them. After giving opportunity to the parties, by the impugned orders, allotments made in their favour have been cancelled and they were asked to take back the amount deposited by them. By these writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for quashing of the order of the JDA whereby allotments made in their favour have been cancelled. By these writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for quashing of the order of the JDA whereby allotments made in their favour have been cancelled. ( 6 ) I have heard Shri Rakesh Jain for the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 1263/96, 1346/96 and W. P. No. 571/97. Mr. A. M. Trivedi appears on behalf of the petitioner in W. P. No. 1335/96. Mr. R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate appears for the petitioner in W. P. No. 2443/96. Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate appears for the petitioners in W. P. No. 2619/96. Mr. Aseem Dixit and Mr. S. K. Mishra have appeared on behalf of the petitioners in W. P. No. 3922/96 and W. P. No. 574/98 respectively. State of Madhya Pradesh is represented by Shri R. S. Jha, the Deputy Advocate-General whereas Mr. S. Nagu appears on behalf of the JDA. The main submission has been advanced by Shri Rajendra Tiwari which has been adopted by other counsels representing the petitioners. ( 7 ) MR. Rajendra Tiwari submits that the foundation of the impugned order is the report of the Committee constituted by the State Government and the State Government having no authority to constitute any Committee in relation to the allotment of land by the Authority, action taken on the basis of the report is vitiated in the eye of law. Mr. R. S. Jha, Deputy Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the State Government, however, submits that Section 76-BB of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) confers on the State Government the power to make enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of the Development Authority and in exercise of the said power the State Government constituted Jagatpati Committee to look into the working of the Jabalpur Development Authority which would obviously include the matter in relation to the allotment of the land by the authority. Section 76-BB of the aforesaid Act reads as follows :-"76-BB. Enquiry by the State Government.- The State Government on its own motion, authorise a person by order in writing to hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of a Development Authority. Section 76-BB of the aforesaid Act reads as follows :-"76-BB. Enquiry by the State Government.- The State Government on its own motion, authorise a person by order in writing to hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of a Development Authority. (2) The person authorised under sub-section (1) shall for the purpose of an enquiry under this section, have the following powers, namely :- (a) he shall at all times have free access to the books, accounts and documents belonging to the Development Authority and may summon any person in possession and responsible for the custody of such books, accounts and documents to produce the same; (b) he may summon any person who has reason to believe has knowledge of any of the affairs of the Development Authority to appear before him and may examine such person on oath. (3) The person authorised under sub-section (1) shall submit his report indicating his findings to the State Government within the time specified in the order under sub-section (1 ). "a plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the State Government on its own motion can authorise a person by order in writing to hold an enquiry into the working condition of the Development Authority, Jabalpur. Development Authority is a statutory authority constituted under Section 38 of the Act. Under Section 50 of the Act, it is required to prepare a town development scheme and make allotment of the land. Work of the Authority is thus to make allotment of the land and Section 76-BB of the Act having conferred powers on the State Government to hold enquiry into the working condition of a Development Authority, I am of the considered opinion that the State Government is possessed of the power to appoint a committee, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 76-BB of the Act. The State Government has constituted the committee in exercise of such power which cannot be said to be illegal in any way. I do not find any substance in this submission of Shri Tiwari. ( 8 ) MR. The State Government has constituted the committee in exercise of such power which cannot be said to be illegal in any way. I do not find any substance in this submission of Shri Tiwari. ( 8 ) MR. Tiwari, then, submits that the constitution of the Committee, only to took into the illegality or otherwise of the allotments made between the period March 1990 to December 1992, is mala fide; as according to him, during the said period, Bhartiya Janta Party was in power in the State which was succeeded by the Congress Govt. According to him, the act of the Congress Govt. in appointing the Committee to look into the validity of the allotments made only during the rule of Bhartiya Janta Party, is mala fide. I do not have the slightest hesitation in rejecting this submission of Mr. Tiwari. Merely the fact that the Committee has been asked to look into allotments made during the period when the B. J. P. was in power shall not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the act of the successor State Govt. of a different political party is mala fide. I am of the opinion that in case it comes to the notice of the successor State Government, may be of a different political party; that the allotments of land made during the period when other political party was in power were illegal, nothing prevents the State Government to appoint a Committee to look into the allotment made when the earlier State Govt. was of a different political party. I do not find any substance in this submission of Mr. Tiwari. ( 9 ) AS stated earlier, one of the grounds to rescind the allotment is that before making the allotment and executing the lease deed, prior approval of the State Government as required under Rule 19 of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh (Vikasit Bhoomiyo, Griho, Bhavno Tatha Anya Sanrachnaon Ka Vyayan) Niyam, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules') was not obtained. It is common ground that the land has been allocated to the petitioners by the Authority at the concessional rate. ( 10 ) MR. R. S. Jha, Dy. A. G. , appearing on behalf of the State Govt. It is common ground that the land has been allocated to the petitioners by the Authority at the concessional rate. ( 10 ) MR. R. S. Jha, Dy. A. G. , appearing on behalf of the State Govt. as also Sri Nagu appearing on behalf of the JDA contend that for allotment of land on concessional rate, JDA was under an obligation to obtain previous approval of the State Govt. However, the plea of the petitioners in this regard is that by order dated 28-8-1986, the State Govt. by general order authorised the Authority to make settlement on no profit/no loss basis; to public educational and social institutions. According to Shri Tiwari, in view of the general order of the State Government authorising the Authority to make settlement on no profit/no loss basis, prior approval of the State Govt. as required under Rule 19 of the Rules is not necessary. ( 11 ) IT is relevant here to state that the State Govt. while issuing order dated 28-8-1986 opined that proposals sent to the State Govt. for its approval for allotment of land to educational and religious institutions by various Authorities result into delay and the concerned institutions are exposed to various difficulties. In the light of the same, the State Govt. decided that allotment of land on concessional rate be made to the public, educational, social and religious institutions on no profit/no loss basis. ( 12 ) MR. Jha points out that the aforesaid order of the State Govt. does not override the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules for obtaining the previous approval of the State Govt. for leasing out land on concessional rate and in any view of the matter, the condition precedent for application of the aforesaid order is that the settlement has to be made on no profit/no loss basis and the Authority having not worked out the details thereof, order of the State Govt. dated 28-8-1986 is wholly inapplicable. ( 13 ) HAVING appreciated the rival submissions, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Jha. Nothing has been placed on record to demonstrate as to the amount spent by the Authority in obtaining the land and its development. dated 28-8-1986 is wholly inapplicable. ( 13 ) HAVING appreciated the rival submissions, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Jha. Nothing has been placed on record to demonstrate as to the amount spent by the Authority in obtaining the land and its development. In case the respondent Authority intended taking shelter behind the order of the State Government dated 28-8-1986, it was under an obligation to work out the cost and other expenditure to arrive at the price of the land so that same could have been settled on no profit/no loss basis without the approval of the State Govt. In the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the petitioners as also the Authority cannot bank upon the order of the State Govt. dated 28-8-1986 to obliviate the provision of Rule 19 of the Rules. I am of the opinion that the Authority before leasing out the land on concessional terms was under an obligation to obtain the previous approval of the State Govt. which has not been done. Hence the allotments of the land in favour of the petitioners by the Authority are in breach of Rule 19 of the Rules. Thus, I do not find any substance in this submission of Shri Tiwari. ( 14 ) MR. Tiwari further contended that admittedly the cancellation of the allotment is on account of report of the Jagatpati Committee and the Committee having not given any opportunity to the petitioners, impugned orders are vitiated on account of infraction of principle of natural justice. Mr. Jha, Dy. A. G. , however, contends that in the facts of the present case, impugned action cannot be said to have been vitiated for breach of principle of natural justice, as according to him, the facts of the present case did not require any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. ( 15 ) HAVING appreciated the rival submissions, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Jha, Principle of natural justice is not an unruly horse. Its application depends upon the fact and circumstances of each case. In the present case, illegality has been committed by the Authority while allocating the land to the petitioners. Petitioners have been allocated land contrary to the provisions of law arbitrarily and the same is thus ab initio void. Jha, Principle of natural justice is not an unruly horse. Its application depends upon the fact and circumstances of each case. In the present case, illegality has been committed by the Authority while allocating the land to the petitioners. Petitioners have been allocated land contrary to the provisions of law arbitrarily and the same is thus ab initio void. Action of allotment at throw away price is directly against the public interest and in the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the cancellation cannot be faulted on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioners. Extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is invoked to advance justice and not to defeat the same. Interference of this Court in exercise of its prerogative power instead of advancing the justice shall defeat the same. ( 16 ) MR. Tiwari, lastly submits that once allotment of land is made in favour of the petitioners, same cannot be cancelled and action of the respondents in cancelling the allotments is in the teeth of principle of promissory estoppel. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Kasinka Trading v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 874 ; and my attention has been drawn to the following paragraph of the said judgment (at page 882) :"it would bear repetition that in order to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel, it is necessary that the promise which is sought to be enforced must be shown to be an unequivocal promise to the other party intended to create a legal relationship and that it was acted upon as such by the party to whom the same was made. A notification issued under Section 25 of the Act cannot be said to be holding out of any such unequivocal promise by the Government which was intended to create any legal relationship between the Government and the party drawing benefit flowing from the said notification. It is, therefore, futile to contend that even if the public interest so demanded and the Central Govt. was satisfied that the exemption did not require to be extended any further, it could still not withdraw the exemption. It is, therefore, futile to contend that even if the public interest so demanded and the Central Govt. was satisfied that the exemption did not require to be extended any further, it could still not withdraw the exemption. " ( 17 ) SHRI R. S. Jha as also Shri S. Nagu appearing on behalf of the State Government and the Authority respectively submit that in the facts of the present case, the principle of promissory estoppel is not remotely attracted. In my opinion where one party has by his word or conduct made to the other party an unequivocal promise or representation, which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing as well as intending that the representation, assurance of the promise would be acted upon by the other party to whom it has been made and has, in fact, been so acted upon by the other party, the promise, assurance or representation should be binding on the party making it and that party should not be permitted to go back upon it. Here, in the present case, besides the petitioners, other persons also made requests for allotments of land. Their case has not been considered. Although the settlement was made on concessional terms, approval of the State Govt. as required under Rule 19 of the Rules was not obtained. Premium of the land has been fixed without working out the details of the amount spent by the Authority. In the facts of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the principle of promissory estoppel is not remotely attracted. ( 18 ) HAVING negatived all the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. I do not find any merit in any of the writ petitions. However, the JDA shall consider the request of the petitioners and all other applicants for grant of land on concessional rates in accordance with law, within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. As considerable time has elapsed from the date of initial advertisement, the JDA shall be well advised to invite fresh applications. ( 19 ) IN the result, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and they are dismissed accordingly with the observation made above, but without costs. Petitions dismissed. .