ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties for final disposal. 2. Petitioner is challenging the advertisement dated 29th September, 2006 (Annexure 10) published by respondent No. 2- Hindustan Copper Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Company") inviting expression of interest for re-commissioning and operative its Surda Mines and Concentrator Plant etc., situated at Mosaboni, Ghatsila. 3. Mr. V. Shivnath, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as follows. The Labour Union requested the Company for allowing labours to re-start the said mine and plaint on forming a Cooperative, to which the Labour and Mines Department of the Government of India also have no objection. Petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as "MoU") on 11.2.2003 with the Company for the said purpose and the same was acted upon. Therefore, the Company is estopped from inviting expression of Interest from other parties. He further submitted that the action of the Company is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. A.K. Sinha, Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Company submitted as follows. This writ petition is not maintainable. Only fundamental rights can be enforced against the instrumentality of the State. MoU is only an understanding for entering into an agreement. It is not a statutory contract. The Labour Union has been exercising pressure at different levels. Recommissioning the mine and plant requires expertise and huge investment, whereas petitioner is simply a pocket society of few labour leaders. Moreover the MoU is void db inltto being in the teeth of Rules 22, 22A, 22B, 22BB and 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules. It has not been acted upon. The Company is justified in finding out, the best financially and technically competent person. For maintaining transparency in awarding work, advertisement had to be made. He lastly submitted that Company is not precluded from taking a right decision. 5. The question is whether the MoU in question can be enforced by the petitioner and whether the Court should interfere with the impugned decision of the Company. 6. The Company decided to close Surda mine, plant and other allied department. The Ministry of Labour found that such closure will help in improving the overall performance of the Company which would in turn protect the employment of large number of remaining work force and that the request for such closure is reasonable and genuine. 6. The Company decided to close Surda mine, plant and other allied department. The Ministry of Labour found that such closure will help in improving the overall performance of the Company which would in turn protect the employment of large number of remaining work force and that the request for such closure is reasonable and genuine. Accordingly, permission was granted for closure for the mine and its allied department subject to the condition that the management should ensure payment of statutory dues and the voluntary retirement scheme benefits as per the approved norms before the retrenchment of workers. However, on the representation of the Labour Union, it was inter alia observed that the Company should also explore the possibilities of allotting the house on lease/purchases basis to the workmen to be retrenched and that the Company may also consider the proposal of the Union for transfer of the mine to the workers cooperative by taking up the matter with the concerned authorities. Such observations cannot be termed as permission of the Labour department to transfer the mine to the petitioner as contended by Mr. Shivnath. The no objection of the Mines Department will also not create any right in favour of the petitioner. The State Government is only competent to approve transfer of mining lease. Moreover, the MoU expired in December, 2003 and it cannot be accepted that it was acted upon by the agreements for supply of labours for maintaining essential services only. Thus the principle of promissory estoppel is not applicable in this case. The said MoU is also in the teeth of the provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The MoU in question cannot preclude the Company and it was justified in inviting expression of interest for finding out the best person, competent financially and technically. Such decision is not only in the interest of the Company and its employees but also in public interest. The extraction of mineral in proper and scientific manner and its proper utilisation is in the national interest also. The argument about violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is also misconceived. The Central Government approved closure of mine and plant, subject to payment of statutory dues and V.R.S. benefits as per the norms before retrenching the employees. 7. The argument about violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is also misconceived. The Central Government approved closure of mine and plant, subject to payment of statutory dues and V.R.S. benefits as per the norms before retrenching the employees. 7. On considering the matter from all possible angles, in my view, the petitioner cannot enforce the MoU in question and this Court should not interfere with the wisdom and decision of the Company in relation to managing its affairs. The petitioner can also participate and compete pursuant to the impugned notice. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.