JUDGMENT : A.K. Ganguly, C.J. - The writ Petitioner, Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (formerly known as Bhushan Limited), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, filed this writ petition initially praying for quashing the impugned order dated 31.12.2005 which was issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Steel and Mines, Government of Orissa asking the Petitioner to submit a draft agreement to that Department at an early date, inter alia, on the ground that the Government has not treated the earlier MOU signed with M/s. Bhushan Group of Companies as a place specific after the company has been divided into M/s. Bhushan Limited and M/s. Bhushan Steel and Strips Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BBSL'). 2. In the course of hearing of this petition and pursuant to the Court's order the issue of grant of mining lease in favour of the Petitioner company by the State Government was directed to be considered by the appropriate authority of the State Government and thereafter an order was passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Steel and Mines, Government of Orissa purporting to cancel the Petitioner's application for grant of mining lease and that order was also impugned in this writ petition. 3. The facts as urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are as follows: The writ Petitioner was formerly known as Bhushan Ltd. and its name was changed with effect from 28.6.2006. The Petitioner has a number of steel plants located in different States of India, namely, West Bengal, Punjab, Orissa and Union Territory of Chandigarh. The Petitioner-company wanted to set up its Steel Plant in the State of Orissa and on the basis of the said decision a letter was written by the Petitioner No. 1 to the Orissa Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (hereinafter called as 'IDCO') for acquisition of land of 1250 acres falling under Rengali Tahsil at Thelkoli, Dubenchapad and Khariapalli village of Sambalpur district and request was also made for expediting the land acquisition process. As a follow up measure, two letters were written on 28th November, 2001 by the Petitioner to the Collector, Sundargarh and Collector, Keonjhar along with application for grant of mining lease. As a follow up measure, two letters were written on 28th November, 2001 by the Petitioner to the Collector, Sundargarh and Collector, Keonjhar along with application for grant of mining lease. From those letters it appears that prior to the writing of those letters, the Petitioner company had a discussion with the Chief Minister of Orissa followed by the meeting convened by the Chief Secretary, Government of Orissa on 30.12.2001. The said application for grant of mining lease in Thakurani RF under Champua Sub-division of Keonjhar district was received by the Collector, Keonjhar some time on 4.12.2001. It may be noted that this application No. 775 dated 4.12.2001 of the Petitioner company ultimately led to issuance of a show cause notice dated 18.1.2006 by the Steel and Mines Department, Government of Orissa and this Court in the course of hearing of this matter directed the Petitioner-company to appear before the authority in connection with the said notice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18.6.2007 was passed rejecting the Petitioner's application for grant of mining lease and the said order has been impugned by the Petitioner in this proceeding. 4. However, a meeting took place on 27.3.2002 between the Petitioner and the Chief Secretary, Government of Orissa regarding the establishment of Steel Plant at Thelkoloi-Lapanga (hereinafter called the 'said area') in Sambalpur district. In the said meeting it was stated by the representatives of the State that land required for the steel plant had been identified and requisition for acquiring the land has been submitted to IDCO for necessary action and after a detailed discussion several decisions were taken about making available the land, power, water and in so far as the mines are concerned it was made clear that the Government will give due priority to the Petitioner in consideration of suitable Iron Ore areas in their favour under the provision of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and Mineral Concession Rules. It was also decided that Government would recommend the Petitioner's prayer for mining lease to the Government of India for necessary grant of coal block in favour of the company. A subsequent meeting was also held on 24.4.2002 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister of Orissa regarding setting up the Steel Project by the Petitioner in the said area. 5. A subsequent meeting was also held on 24.4.2002 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister of Orissa regarding setting up the Steel Project by the Petitioner in the said area. 5. In the said meeting it was decided that all steps will be taken to sign the Memorandum of Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as 'MOU') on 15.5.2002. In the minutes of the meeting between the Chief Minister and the representatives of the Petitioner decision on the following points were recorded. (a) The site for setting up of the steel project by Bhushan Limited is in the said area. This is clear from the heading of the minutes which was drawn up. (b) It was also recorded that the land has been identified and other infrastructure requirements like water, power etc. are being tied up. (c) The requirement of the company is about 200 MMT of reserve Iron ore per annum from the Thakurani mines which has a Fe content of more than 65%. (d) The Chief Minister appreciated the aforesaid proposal of the Petitioner to set up the steel project in Orissa and to extend necessary support was agreed to be extended. It was also minuted that the company's first priority is to set up the steel plant in Orissa even though they have received similar offers from the Government of West Bengal and Chhatisgarh. It was decided to sign the MOU on 15.05.2002. The minutes of the meeting have been disclosed in Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 6. Thereafter, the Petitioner-company was in writing assured by the IDCO on 25.4.2002 by referring to the minutes of the meeting of the Chief Minister dated 24.4.2002, that the proposal for land acquisition for the Petitioner will be given top priority and the process of land acquisition will take 8 to 9 months. On the same day the Petitioner received Anr. communication from the Additional Secretary, Department of Water Resources referring to the minutes of the meeting dated 24.4.2002 to allow the Petitioner to draw water from Hirakud Reservoir to set up the integrated steel plant in the said area. 7. Then the MOU was signed by the State Government on 15.5.2002 in the name of M/s. Bhushan Group of Companies which was then consisting of the Petitioner company and BSSL. The MOU was for setting up of a steel plant for 1.2 million ton per year under Phase-I and Anr. 7. Then the MOU was signed by the State Government on 15.5.2002 in the name of M/s. Bhushan Group of Companies which was then consisting of the Petitioner company and BSSL. The MOU was for setting up of a steel plant for 1.2 million ton per year under Phase-I and Anr. 2.8 million tons steel plant under Phase-II. In the said MOU in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 reference was made to Bhushan Steel so far as allotment of land and statutory clearance is concerned and also about approval of mining lease and getting other clearances under Forest Conservation Act and also about environmental clearances. 8. It was also made clear that all the Iron Ore will be for captive use inside the state and will be part of the mining lease condition. So far as power is concerned Bhushan Steel has also been referred to in the said MOU. It was also stated that the MOU will be invalid in case Bhushan Steel will not make any substantial progress. But immediately after the signing of the said MOU the Government of Orissa requested the Government of India for allotment of Jhamkani and Bijahan Coal Blocks in favour of the Petitioner for the Steel Plant at the said area. 9. In the meantime the Government approval for acquisition of land for establishment of a Steel Plant at the aforesaid place was conveyed by the Joint Secretary, Government of Orissa, Department of Steel and Mines to the Managing Director, IDCO, Bhubaneswar on 5.7.2002. 10. Thereafter a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary, Government of Orissa, Department of Steel and Mines on 24.7.2002 for early implementation of the project of setting up of a steel plant by the Petitioner in Sambalpur district of Orissa. In the said meeting it was mentioned that the mining lease for the first phase is expected to be received from the Collector, Keonjhar in a day or two and the Director of Mines, Orissa shall then forward the application to Steel and Mines Department latest by 5.8.2002. The Steel and Mines Department then will examine and submit the same to the Government of India latest by 25.8.2002. The Steel and Mines Department then will examine and submit the same to the Government of India latest by 25.8.2002. A review meeting was then held on 31.8.2002 under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary, Government of Orissa, Steel and Mines Department wherein decisions were taken for implementing the proposal for setting up of a Steel Plant by the Petitioner in Sambalpur district and the Joint Director of Mines, who was present in the said meeting assured the Petitioner of sending its proposal for grant of mining lease by the first week of September, 2002. 11. The State Pollution Control Board also granted its approval for the aforesaid setting up of the Steel Plant. A further meeting of the Review Committee was held on 7.11.2002 under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Department of Steel and Mines monitoring the progress made in respect of acquisition of land, supply of coal, water and power and about the iron-ore which was noted in presence of the Director of Mines, who assured the Petitioner company to send its mining lease application for iron-ore to the Department of Steel and Mines within a week and then the administrative department will take 3 to 4 weeks' time for processing the proposal for being sent to the Government of India. Thereafter on 8.11.2002 the Director of Mines gave his report to the Joint Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Department of Steel and Mines. In the said report the promise of the State Government to recommend the Petitioner's mining lease application to the Government of India for allotment of iron-ore mines was acknowledged. The Director of Mines recommended for grant of mining lease to the Petitioner in respect of an area of 383.996 hectares containing approximately 96 million tons of iron ore in a portion of Thakurani Block-A on a preferential basis to meet the captive requirement of the plant for a period of 60 years. The recommendation was made in favour of the Petitioner by invoking Section 11(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act subject to prior approval of the Central Government u/s 5(1) of the said Act and in relaxation of Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules. 12. The recommendation was made in favour of the Petitioner by invoking Section 11(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act subject to prior approval of the Central Government u/s 5(1) of the said Act and in relaxation of Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules. 12. In the meantime, a resolution was taken by the Board of Directors of the Petitioner company for withdrawing the amalgamation petition filed before the Delhi High Court for amalgamation of Bhushan Steel with BSSL. Accordingly there was a Board meeting of BSSL on 31.1.2003 for withdrawal of the amalgamation petition filed in Delhi High Court on 31.7.2002. In the meantime, the Petitioner sent letters to the Government of Orissa including the Hon'ble Chief Minister informing the authorities of the progress of the project in terms of the MOU dated 15.5.2002 and also asked for allotment of mines. The failure of merger or amalgamation was brought to the knowledge of the Principal Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Department of Steel and Mines by Brij Bhushan Singal, Chairman, Bhushan Group. The same was also brought to the knowledge of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. 13. Thereafter the Petitioner deposited the cost of land which was acquired in villages Thelkoloi, Dhubenchhapar and Khadipalli, Tahasil-Rengali, Lapanga amounting to Rs. 15.58 crores for private land and Rs. 5.82 crores for Government land. Such acquisition was made between 9.4.2003 and 3.6.2003. Then on 28.4.2003 Gridco granted permission to the Petitioner for wheeling of power and on 30.4.2003 Gridco approved 220 KV line to the plant site of the Petitioner for supply of power. 14. In the meantime, a letter dated 5th May, 2003 was addressed by Shri Neeraj Singal, Managing Director of BSSL to the Hon'ble Chief Minister for setting up of separate steel plant at Meramundali in the district of Dhenkanal. Thereafter on 27.6.2003 a letter was given by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Orissa, Industries Department to the Joint Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Department of Steel and Mines to recommend to the Government of India for expeditious allotment of coal blocks to the Petitioner at Jimkhani and Bijahan for captive use. 15. Thereafter on 27.6.2003 a letter was given by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Orissa, Industries Department to the Joint Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Department of Steel and Mines to recommend to the Government of India for expeditious allotment of coal blocks to the Petitioner at Jimkhani and Bijahan for captive use. 15. Another meeting was held on 25th July, 2003 under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Chief Minister to review the status of the proposed integrated steel plant to be set up by the Petitioner at the said area in the district of Sambalpur and it was decided that the Petitioner's mining lease application for iron-ore deposits will be recommended to the Government of India as per the MOU after the same is placed before the Screening Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary. 16. Relying on the minutes of these meetings, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that decision was taken in the meeting, presided over by the Chief Minister, with the knowledge that merger or amalgamation between the companies had already failed. Even then no demand was made for signing a fresh MOU by the Petitioner. On the other hand, it was decided that recommendation will be made to the Central Government on the basis of previous MOU. However, the Government of India between 12.11.2003 and 13.1.2003 allotted the coal blocks at Jimkhani and Bijahan in the district of Sundargarh in terms of the proviso MOU dated 15.5.2002 and this was done obviously after failure of merger. 17. Several authorities like Water Resources Department, Chief Inspector of Factories & Boilers, Orissa, the railway authorities approved the scheme of setting up of a Steel Plant by the Petitioner in the said area. All these developments took place between November, 2003 and January, 2004. On 10.2.2004, two letters were written to the Petitioner by the Government of Orissa in the Department of Steel and Mines for signing of a fresh MOU, inter alia, on the ground that the previous MOU dated 15.5.2002 had lost its force and signing of a fresh MOU was required in order to ensure expeditious implementation of the project "which is on the anvil". Another letter of the same date was written by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Department of Steel and Mines to BSSL for submission of a draft MOU. 18. Another letter of the same date was written by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Department of Steel and Mines to BSSL for submission of a draft MOU. 18. To the letter dated 10.2.2004 the Petitioner gave a reply by its letter dated 21.2.2004 to the effect that no fresh MOU is required to be signed as diverse steps have been taken by the Petitioner to set up the steel plant and all those steps were taken relying on the MOU dated 15.5.2002. It was mentioned further that land has been acquired, coal blocks have been allotted and other clearance and approval have been obtained, no objection from State Pollution Control Board was obtained under the previous MOU dated 15.5.2002 and as such the said MOU is treated as subsisting and binding between the parties and the question of execution of further MOU does not arise. Copy of the said letter was sent to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the Hon'ble Minister, Department of Steel and Mines, the Hon'ble Minister, Department of Industries, the Chief Secretary, Government of Orissa, and the Principal Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Law Department. 19. In the meantime, a letter was written on 17th March, 2004 by Mr. Neeraj Singal, Managing Director of Bhushan Limited to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Department of Steel and Mines contending that both the Petitioner and BBSL are entitled to the benefits under the MOU dated 15.5.2002. 20. However, the possession of the land measuring 1154 acres which was acquired by IDCO was handed over to the Petitioner. This happened between 24th March, 2004 and 22nd December, 2005. By letter dated 12th May, 2004 the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India issued clearance to the Petitioner to set up the steel project at Rengali in the district of Sambalpur. A letter was written on 2.2.2005 by Shri A.K. Sahu, Joint Secretary to Government of Orissa, Department of Steel and Mines asking the Petitioner to furnish the present status report of the Steel Plant Project to the said Department for which MOU has been signed. 21. On the basis of said letter, learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that as on 2.2.2005 the only MOU between the Petitioner and the Government of Orissa was the MOU signed on 15.5.2002. 21. On the basis of said letter, learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that as on 2.2.2005 the only MOU between the Petitioner and the Government of Orissa was the MOU signed on 15.5.2002. Therefore, the Government was proceeding on the basis that the said MOU subsists between the parties. Another letter was written by the said Joint Secretary on 27.5.2005 to the aforesaid effect requesting the Petitioner to furnish the present progress report of the Steel Plant Project "for which MOU has been signed with Government of Orissa". It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the said MOU obviously refers to the MOU dated 15.5.2002. 22. By March, 2005, the Petitioner commenced production of the Steel Plant at the aforesaid area. Thereafter on inspection the Chief Electrical Inspector, Gridco cleared the electrical installation of the Petitioner and approved synchronization of CPP with Budhipadar sub-station. Thereafter the Petitioner deposited the land premium and administrative charges for acquisition and alienation of land for Jamkhani coal block. A meeting was held on 5.7.2005 under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Minister for Steel and Mines and Parliamentary Affairs Department, Government of Orissa to review the progress of the Steel Plant Project,for which MOU has been signed and for setting up of a Steel Plant in the district of Sambalpur. In so far as . e Petitioner is concerned, it was mentioned that the Petitioner has already invested more than 25% investment and started production of steel and therefore, requested for linkage of iron ore/allocation of iron ore area. 23. On 3.11.2005 Anr. MOU was signed between BSSL and the Government of Orissa for putting up the steel plant at Meramundali in the district of Angul. Then came the impugned order dated 31.12.2005 by which the Petitioner was asked to sign a fresh MOU for the purpose of acquiring land, allotting mines and providing other facility for establishment and growth of Steel Plants in the best interest of the State. 24. Then came the impugned order dated 31.12.2005 by which the Petitioner was asked to sign a fresh MOU for the purpose of acquiring land, allotting mines and providing other facility for establishment and growth of Steel Plants in the best interest of the State. 24. On receiving the said impugned letter dated 31.12.2005, the Petitioner made a representation on 23.1.2006 to the Joint Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Department of Steel and Mines pointing out therein the relevant facts and also the fact that the Government has already signed the MOU on 15.5.2002 which is subsisting and on the basis of said MOU several steps have been taken and the MOU has been acted upon both by the Government of Orissa and the Petitioner. The Petitioner's contention is that in the facts of this case the Government cannot ask it to sign a fresh MOU. If the Government asks the Petitioner to do so that will be illegal and opposed to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 25. On and from 28.2.2006 Bhushan Limited changed its name into Bhushan Power and Steel Limited. 26. The Petitioner however, was asked by the Government of Orissa, Steel and Mines Department by its communication dated 26.4.2006 to submit the information about the progress of its Steel Plant. Such letter was addressed to all the M.O.U. signed companies. The Petitioner received the said letter on 17.5.2006. Again on 24.10.2006 Anr. letter was sent by the same department of Government of Orissa asking for the progress report in the prescribed format. Similarly, Anr. letter was also sent to the Petitioner on 12.2.2007 by the said Department of Government of Orissa asking thee Petitioner to furnish the progress report in the prescribed format and to attend the meeting for review of physical and financial progress of MOU and such meeting was scheduled to be held in the Board Room of OMC on 27.2.2007. The Petitioner furnished the requisite information in the prescribed format. The Petitioner was therefore treated as MOU signed Steel Project by the State Government all through. 27. The other aspect of the case cropped up in the course of hearing of the matter when the writ petition was heard by the parties and upon exchange of the affidavit. 28. The Petitioner furnished the requisite information in the prescribed format. The Petitioner was therefore treated as MOU signed Steel Project by the State Government all through. 27. The other aspect of the case cropped up in the course of hearing of the matter when the writ petition was heard by the parties and upon exchange of the affidavit. 28. In the course of hearing it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the State that the Petitioner be directed to appear before the appropriate authority of the State to attend the hearing in connection with its application for mining ore and in relation thereto, a show cause notice had already been sent to the Petitioner. 29. The learned Counsel for the State submitted that the said hearing was meant for the purpose of making good the deficiencies pointed out in the show-cause notice dated 18.1.2006 and the Petitioner may appear before the authority for making good the deficiency, so that the Petitioner's application for mining lease can be effectively considered. But it could not be done in view of the status quo order of the Court. On such submission being advanced, the Court by its order dated 22.3.2007 asked the Petitioner to appear before the Joint Secretary and the Joint Secretary was directed to give a hearing to the Petitioner and other parties for the purpose of making good the deficiencies pointed out in the show cause notice dated 18.1.2006. This Court made it clear that upon hearing the parties whatever order may be passed will be sent to the High Court in a sealed cover since the hearing of the main matter is pending and the parties may appear without prejudice-to their rights. 30. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 22.3.2007, hearing commenced and was concluded before the Joint Secretary on 11.4.2007. The Petitioner filed its written submission and the Petitioner was supposed to file full report of the Geological Survey of India on the next date i.e. on 12.4.2007. On the next date i.e. on 12.4.2007 the Petitioner filed the full report and thereafter no hearing took place. 31. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the Joint Secretary obtained some report from the Director of Mines without informing the Petitioner and that report, obtained by the Joint Secretary, was not disclosed to the Petitioner and no notice of the same was ever given to the Petitioner. 31. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the Joint Secretary obtained some report from the Director of Mines without informing the Petitioner and that report, obtained by the Joint Secretary, was not disclosed to the Petitioner and no notice of the same was ever given to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Joint Secretary on 18.6.2007 passed an order and sent it to the High Court in a sealed cover. Before the High Court on 26.6.2007, the sealed cover was opened and the Hon'ble Court directed circulation of the said order to the parties. However, a copy of the order was already with the learned Counsel for the State. The High Court gave liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the said order by filing an affidavit and reply to the same was also directed to be fjled. Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 19.7.2007 and the Petitioner assailed the legality of the order of the Joint Secretary before this Court. 32. Learned Counsel on behalf of opposite party No. 2 mainly urged that the MOU on 15.5.2002 was executed between the Government of Orissa and the Bhushan Group which was consisting of two major Companies namely, BSSL and the Petitioner and it was also urged that both the Companies are engaged in identical manner of business namely, manufacture of cold rolled steel, galvanized steel and other steel products. The scheme of merger between two Companies was in contemplation but ultimately the same did not come through. When the scheme of merger was in active contemplation, Bhusan Group approached the Government of Orissa for setting up of an integrated steel plant in the State and the MOU dated 15.5.2002 was executed. The said MOU was signed between the State of Orissa and Bhushan Group by Sri Neeraj Singal, Managing Director of BSSL and a Director of the Petitioner-Company. However, the merger was not sanctioned by Delhi High Court as differences arose between the promoters of the two Companies and the disputes were resolved on 30.11.2002 by an oral family agreement between the two groups of Companies. Pursuant to such family arrangement the amalgamation petition was withdrawn from the Delhi High Court and the Delhi High Court permitted the withdrawal by its order dated 23.1.2003. Pursuant to such family arrangement the amalgamation petition was withdrawn from the Delhi High Court and the Delhi High Court permitted the withdrawal by its order dated 23.1.2003. The aforesaid failure of amalgamation was brought to the notice of the Government of Orisa by various letters dated 10.2.2003, 21.2.2003 and 4.4.2003 by the BSSL. But however, BSSL by its letter dated 10.2.2003 informed the Government of Orissa about the decision to set up a steel plant, not at Lapanga, the original location with a view to minimize the area of dispute. So BSSL decided to set up the proposed plant at Meramandali in Dhenkanal District and a new site was identified and the Government of Orissa was requested to make land available at the new site and also for statutory clearances for drawal of water, permission for power plant and environmental clearance. BBSL got the necessary permission to set up the plant at Meramandali. 33. The Government of Orissa also conveyed it administrative approval for acquisition of private land measuring 1262.80 acres in the districts of Dhenkanal and Angul for the purpose of setting up of an integrated steel plant by BSSL. Learned Counsel for the BSSL also referred to various correspondences between the BSSL and the statutory authorities for setting up of a captive power plant and also for permission to draw water from the river Brahmani for the new plant at Meramandali. Permission from Railways for the said plant was also sought for by BBSL and it also asked for environmental clearance from State Pollution Control Board, Orissa and it granted No Objection Certificate on 17.11.2004, in the meantime, a decision was taken by the Government of Orissa in the meeting on 27.8.2003 under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary of Orissa in view of the split in the Bhusan Group that two separate MOUs were to be executed by two Companies and the Government gave a letter dated 10.2.2004 to the effect that the previous MOU dated 15.5.2002 had lost its force and therefore fresh MOD was required to be signed and a draft MOU was enclosed to the said letter. In response to the said letter dated 10.2.2004, BSSL addressed a letter dated 17.3.2004 in which it was stated that the BSSL will also expect that all the benefits of MOU dated 15.5.2002 be given to it and in the said letter it was also made clear that the BSSL had paid more than fifty crores as advance for purchase of equipments worth Rs. 300 crores which they would not have advanced unless the promise and commitments in the MOU dated 15.5.2002 were made to them by the Government of Orissa. However, BSSL did not receive any reply to its letter dated 17.3.2004. Then Anr. letter dated 20.8.2004 was written by the BSSL informing the Government of Orissa that if it wanted to enter into a new MOU, the same had to be in line with the MOU dated 15.5.2002. Thereupon, the Government of Orissa informed the BSSL that the previous MOU dated 15.5.2002 had lost its force and BSSL should execute a new MOU for the successful implementation of the project. 34. The BSSL following the said request of the State Government, as a prudent businessman, executed a new agreement on 3.11.2005. The stand of the opposite party No. 2 is that by executing the agreement dated 3.11.2005, the BSSL did not surrender its right under MOU dated 15.5.2002. Therefore, the stand of the BSSL is that the new plant at Meramandali was set up pursuant to and on the basis of the MOU dated 15.5.2002. Prior to the new agreement dated 3.11.2005, the BSSL had already acquired the land and made substantial investments and most of the required permissions were applied for and granted to BSSL prior to 3.11.2005. So it was setting up the steel plant at Meramandali actually pursuant to MOU dated 15.5.2002 without surrendering any of the rights it acquired under the MOU dated 15.5.2002 and the BSSL is entitled to equal treatment with the Petitioner under the same MOU and the Petitioner-Company cannot enjoy any exclusive right in respect of the iron ore mines situated in the districts of Sundargarh and Keonjhar in terms of the MOU dated 15.5.2002. It was urged that BSSL is also entitled to allotment of mining lease for iron ore in the mines located in the districts of Sundergarh and Keonjhar along with the Petitioner. 35. It was urged that BSSL is also entitled to allotment of mining lease for iron ore in the mines located in the districts of Sundergarh and Keonjhar along with the Petitioner. 35. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand urged that MOU dated 15.5.2002 was never executed by Mr. Sanjay Singhal on behalf of the Petitioner. On the other hand, it was executed and signed by Mr. Niraj Singhal, who is the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Bhushan Ltd. But since amalgamation failed, the said MOU dated 15.5.2002 had lost its force. Even though the amalgamation failed, it was only on 21.2.2003, the Chairman of Bhusan Group through a letter intimated the same to the Chief Minister. Later on, it was intimated by BSSL on 5.5.2003. The failure of the amalgamation was totally shocking to the State. But before the failure of amalgamation, rapid steps were taken regarding infrastructure development like making available of vast area of land, coal, energy, water, forest clearance, clearance from pollution Board etc. to the proposed amalgamated unit. It was also urged that the proposal in the meeting dated 25.7.2003 with the Chief Minister was not acted upon. After that decision, Government wanted to consult the Law Department with the approval of the Chief Minister in the file. On 27.8.2003 *he issue was discussed in the 12th meeting in presence of the Chief Secretary and it was decided that two fresh MOUs are to be executed by two units of Bhusan Group. The said decision was approved by the Chief Minister and on the basis of the said decision, two separate letters were issued to the two units. Such letters were approved by the Law Department and also by the Advocate General as per the suggestion of the Chief Minister. After issuance of those two letters to both the Units, discussions were also held separately by the Chief Minister and the matter was referred to the Advocate General for his views whereupon the Advocate General opined for two separate agreements for two units. Thereafter, Mr. Neeraj Singhal of BSSL signed a separate agreement on 3.11.2005. Then by a letter dated 31.12.2005 the Petitioner was also asked to sign a separate agreement. This communication has been challenged by the Petitioner in the writ petition as it did not submft any draft agreement. Thereafter, Mr. Neeraj Singhal of BSSL signed a separate agreement on 3.11.2005. Then by a letter dated 31.12.2005 the Petitioner was also asked to sign a separate agreement. This communication has been challenged by the Petitioner in the writ petition as it did not submft any draft agreement. According to the learned Counsel for the State, the Petitioner is taking an unreasonable stand by not signing the fresh MOU. 36. In so far as the other aspect of the Petitioner's case is concerned, the learned Counsel for the State submits that the same relates to grant of mining lease which was applied for by the-Petitioner in 2001 in respect of different places in Keonjhar-Barbil area. Out of 15 applications made by the Petitioner, the application dated 4.12.2001 relates to Thakurani Block-A which is a forest area and for which notice dated 18.1.2006 was issued to the Petitioner for removal of deficiency. The said application of the Petitioner could not be disposed of in view of the order of Status quo granted by the Hon'ble Court on 15.5.2006. The Court then by order dated 22.3.2007 modified the status quo order and directed the Joint Secretary, Steel and Mines to treat the notice dated 18.1.2006 as a combined notice under Rule 26(1) and 26(3) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and to hear the Petitioner and pass orders according to law without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the writ petition. It was further submitted that pursuant to the said order of the Hon'ble Court, the Petitioner appeared before the Joint Secretary on 28.3.2007 and the Joini Secretary passed an order on 18.6.2007. During the course of hearing, it was noticed by the Joint Secretary that prospecting report in respect of the applied area was not on record. Therefore, the Petitioner was directed to submit the prospecting report of total area of Thakurani prepared by Geological Survey of India in the year 1985. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the State that since these were voluminous record dealing with the technical points relating to prospecting and other records, it was decided, with the consent of the representative of the Petitioners, that the Director of Mines should analyze and submit a report for perusal. It was urged that this order was issued in presence of the Petitioner. It was urged that this order was issued in presence of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the records were given by the Director of Mines and after hearing the parties and perusing the records, the Joint Secretary, Steel and Mines Department passed an order which has been challenged by the Petitioner in this proceeding. Learned Counsel for the State submitted from the records produced by the Petitioner including the prospecting report to show that a negligible area of Thakurani-A Block was prospected. Such fact was ascertained from the Geological Map produced by the Petitioner which clearly indicates that the prospecting in respect of the applied area was not done as required u/s 5(2) of the Act. It was also submitted that apart from deficiencies mentioned in the show cause notice, there were other deficiencies with regard to Rule 22(3) and the same was not complied with by the Petitioner as indicated in the impugned order dated 18.6.2007. Learned Counsel defended the order dated 18.6.2007 and stated that there is no illegality in the same and it was submitted that principle of Promissory Estoppel urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case as no commitment or promise was made to the Petitioner alone in the MOU. It was urged that the Principle of Promissory Estoppel can arise only on the basis of clear and unequivocal stand of the person holding out the promise. On the other hand it was urged that the promise given in the MOU was not honoured by Bhusan Group by not amalgamating the Petitioner Company and BSSL. It was also submitted that the place which is mentioned in the MOU dated 15.5.2002 is not for the Petitioner alone but as per the MOU it was for the Bhusan Group of companies. Therefore, it is incumbent on the part of the Petitioner to sign a separate agreement as has been done by BSSL. It was also submitted that recommendation for grant of mining lease is to be done in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Act and Rules. It was also stated that the order of the Joint Secretary dated 18.6.2007 rejecting the Petitioner's application for mining lease is an order which was finally approved by the Government of Orissa and the same is a Government order as envisaged u/s 10(3) of the Act. It was also stated that the order of the Joint Secretary dated 18.6.2007 rejecting the Petitioner's application for mining lease is an order which was finally approved by the Government of Orissa and the same is a Government order as envisaged u/s 10(3) of the Act. Against the said order, the Petitioner has a remedy by way of filing a revision before the Central Government and revision is the only viable remedy since the Revisional Authority can go into the disputed questions raised by the Petitioner and arrive at a finding. These are the rival contentions of the parties. 37. One of the main points which has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the State Government had actively encouraged the Petitioner to set up the steel plant in the said area on the basis of promises and assurances and on the basis of such promises the Petitioner has altered its position to the extent of spending more than 4000 crores in the last five years. Therefore, the State Government is now estopped from refusing to recommend the grant of lease of iron-ore mine in Joda-Barbil Sector in the district of Keonjhar (Thakurani, Block-A) and the iron ore mine in Koira in the district of Sundargarh to the Central Government in favour of the Petitioner. 38. The Petitioner's contention is that even after the State Government's knowledge of the fact that merger has failed, the State Government has continued to encourage the Petitioner to set up the steel plant in the aforesaid area on the basis of assurances contained in the MOU dated 15.5.2002. 39. This Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner's case on promissory estoppel cannot be accepted in the facts of this case. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the various documents in support of its case on promissory estoppel. 40. It relied on the minutes of the meeting dated 27.3.2002 between the Chief Secretary, Government of Orissa and the Petitioner. In this connection the commitment about mines which is most vital in this case and which has been recorded in the said meeting is as follows: (i) So far as commitment for grant of mining lease for iron or is concerned, State Government will not make any firm commitment in this regard since the matter is ultimately decided by Govt. of India. of India. However, State Government will accord due priority to Bhushan Steel in consideration of suitable iron ore areas in their favour within the provisions of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act and the M.C. Rules. (ii) Government will recommend the proposal to Govt. of India for necessary grant of coal Block in favour of the company. It may be noted here that the commitment was in favour of Bhushan Steel and not Bhushan Limited. Bhushan Steel is the joint name of both the companies. Therefore, from the minutes of the meeting, extracted above, it cannot be said that there is any commitment made by the State Government in favour of the Petitioner alone. 41. Reliance was next placed on the minutes of the meeting on 24.4.2002 between the Chief Minister and the Petitioner. In the said meeting it was recorded as follows: The company proposes to enter into an MOU with the State Government so that the implementation of the project can be started and the project can be completed within 24 months of this zero date. It was decided that all steps may be taken to sign the MOU on 15.5.2002. It was decided that the draft MOU shall be submitted by Bhushan Limited within next two days so that after a preliminary discussion on the MOU the same can be signed on 15.5.2002 with necessary modification if necessary. 42. The aforesaid extracts would show that the Petitioner assured the State Government that it would have a MOU with the State Government for implementation of the project. Then comes the MOU dated 15.5.2002 on which the Petitioner very much relies. But the MOU was entered into between the Government of Orissa and M/s. Bhushan Group of companies which consists of both the Petitioner and BSSL. In that MOU reference is repeatedly made to Bhushan Steel not to Bhushan Limited. This is clear from paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the MOU. In so far as iron ore is concerned, MOU records as follows: The State Government agrees to recommend to Govt. of India for allotment of iron ore deposit expected to contain 96 million tonnes of mineable reserves suitable for sponge iron making in Joda-Barbil sector of Keonjhar district so as to meet 50 years requirements of the 1.2 million tonnes Steel Plant of Bhushan Steel in Orissa. of India for allotment of iron ore deposit expected to contain 96 million tonnes of mineable reserves suitable for sponge iron making in Joda-Barbil sector of Keonjhar district so as to meet 50 years requirements of the 1.2 million tonnes Steel Plant of Bhushan Steel in Orissa. The State Government also agrees to recommend to Govt. of India allotment of additional 128 million tones of mineable deposit (BF grade) as far as possible contiguous in Koira area of Sundargarh district to meet the requirement of 2.8 million ton stage for a period of 50 years. All the iron ore will be for captive use inside the State and will be part of the mining lease condition. The concluding paragraph of the memorandum is: The MOU will be invalid in case Bhushan Steel does not make substantial progress on implementation of the project in terms of construction and investment at site within two years of getting possession of the major portion of the land. So the Petitioner cannot claim the MOU to be between itself and the State Government. 43. The other document on which the Petitioner relies is the report of the Director of Mines dated 8.11.2002. The said report was given on 8.11.2002 when the merger did not fail and the MOU between the Government of Orissa and Bhushan Group of Companies was holding the field. Therefore, those recommendation cannot be for the Petitioner only. 44. In any event the report is not a promise made by the State Government but it contains recommendation by the Director of Mines. In the said recommendation it has been noted that the State Government has signed the MOU with Bhushan Group of companies on 15.5.2002. Therefore, the said recommendation is not in favour of the Petitioner alone. 45. The other document on which the Petitioner is relying is the minutes of the meeting held on 25.7.2003 under Chairmanship of the Chief Minister and the Petitioner. It has been urged by the Petitioner that the said meeting was held with the knowledge that merger had failed. 46. But a close reading of the minutes of the said meeting would show that it was mentioned in paragraph 3 of the MOU that the plant, to be set up by the Petitioner, arose out of the MOU executed between the State Government and Bhushan Group of Companies which, inter alia, includes the Petitioner. 47. 46. But a close reading of the minutes of the said meeting would show that it was mentioned in paragraph 3 of the MOU that the plant, to be set up by the Petitioner, arose out of the MOU executed between the State Government and Bhushan Group of Companies which, inter alia, includes the Petitioner. 47. The relevant part of the minutes of the meeting held on 25.7.2003 are as follows: (a)(i) M/s. Bhushan Limited should submit information in the prescribed format of IPICOL for conducting techno-economic appraisal along with the other relevant documents. (i) The techno-economic appraisai should be completed by IPICOL quickly and the same submitted to the Government. (ii) Subject to techno-economic clearances by IPICOL, the MOU executed between M/s. Bhushan Group and the State Government should be kept intact taken into account the fact that various actions have already been taken by both sides in pursuance of the MOU including submission of copies of MOUs by Bhushan Limited to various agencies. (b) It was further decided that the application of Bhushan Limited for iron ore deposits will be recommended to Govt. of India as per the MOU after being placed before the Screening Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary. 48. If the aforesaid decisions are carefully read, it is clear that one of the decisions was that the MOU executed between Bhushan Group and the State Government should be kept in tact. This was of course subject to techno-economic clearance by IPICOL. 49. It is well known that after the merger failed the MOU between Bhushan Group of Companies and the State Government could not be kept in tact. The Petitioner cannot blame the State Government for failure of merger of the companies controlled by the members of the same family which also controls the Petitioner company. The merger might have failed for a family feud. But the promises were made by the State Government keeping in mind the MOU executed between the State Government and the Bhushan Group of Companies. 50. It may be that though the Government was informed of the failure of merger it was not properly apprised of the same. The merger might have failed for a family feud. But the promises were made by the State Government keeping in mind the MOU executed between the State Government and the Bhushan Group of Companies. 50. It may be that though the Government was informed of the failure of merger it was not properly apprised of the same. That is why within 15 days from 25.7.2003, on a proper re-appraisal of facts a further meeting was held on 8.8.2003 for the purpose of finding out whether two sets of MOU are required to be entered into between the State Government and the Petitioner on one hand and the State Government and BSSL on the other hand. In this context the minutes of 10th MAC meeting held on 8.8.2003 under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary is very relevant. In that meeting there was detailed discussion regarding the MOU dated 15.5.2002 between Bhushan Group and the State Government for establishment of the Steel Plant at Lapanga in Sambalpur district. It was also noted that there was a split in the family and Mr. Neeraj Singal has filed an application on behalf of BSSL for establishment of a separate steel plant at Meramandali in Dhenkanal district and on the other hand Mr. Sanjay Singal was pursuing the Lapanga project on behalf of the Petitioner. In that context, it was decided to obtain the legal opinion on the question whether in the background of split in the family the previous MOU with the Bhushan Group can be considered as subsisting and the minutes of the meeting on this aspect are set out below: 2.1. The Committee noted that a MOU was signed on May 15th, 2003 between the Bhushan Group and the State Government for establishment of a steel plant at Lapanga in Sambalpur District. In the meantime, there has been a split in the family. Shri Neeraj Singhal has filed an application on behalf of M/s. Bhushan Steel & Strips for establishment of a separate steel plant at Meramandali in Dhenkanal District. On the other hand Shri Sanjay Singhal has been pursuing the Lapanga project on behalf of M/s. Bhushan Limited. Both groups have been requesting the Government for honouring the commitments in the MOU in their favour. 2.2. On the other hand Shri Sanjay Singhal has been pursuing the Lapanga project on behalf of M/s. Bhushan Limited. Both groups have been requesting the Government for honouring the commitments in the MOU in their favour. 2.2. It was decided to obtain the advice of Law Department as to whether, given the split in the family, the MOU could be considered to be subsisting, and if so, whether the commitments of State Government in the MOU would be applicable in favour of M/s. Bhushan Limited or M/s. Bhushan Steel & Strips. The further course of action would be decided on receipt of Law Department's advice. 51. It will thus appear that the minutes of the meeting held under the Chairmanship of Chief Minister on 25.7.2003 were not acted upon and within 15 days, i.e. on 8.8.2003 Anr. meeting was called under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary in the changed context of the failure of merger. 52. The matter was thus referred to the Law Department on 13.8.2003 with the concurrence of the Chief Minister. This was within the knowledge of the Petitioner and appears from its letter dated 18th August, 2003 written to the Chief Minister and in paragraph 2 of the said letter, the Petitioner took the following stand: During the meeting we were informed that in view of the family dispute between Mr. Sanjay Singal on the one hand and Mr. B.B. Singal and Mr. Neeraj Singal on the other hand an issue had arisen as to whether MOU dated 15.5.2002 subsists in favour of Bhushan Limited or not. We were further informed that this issue has been referred to the Law Department of Govt. of Orissa for their comments in view of the conflicting claims raised by Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. in respect of MOU dated 15.5.2002. The matter was again discussed in the 12th MAC meeting held on 22.8.2003. In that meeting against Agenda No. 5, the following minutes were recorded. The Committee discussed the matter in detail. The Law Department has opined that the earlier MOU signed between the parties is marked by non-specificity. It has been stated that Bhushan Group is a generic term having no legal entity. In that meeting against Agenda No. 5, the following minutes were recorded. The Committee discussed the matter in detail. The Law Department has opined that the earlier MOU signed between the parties is marked by non-specificity. It has been stated that Bhushan Group is a generic term having no legal entity. Law Department has advised that in view of the developments occurring in the Singhal family after execution of the MOU, fresh MOU may be executed with relevant companies of this group, laying down the terms and conditions explicitly. It was decided that two separate MOUs will be executed with the two companies of the Bhushan Group namely M/s. Bhushan Ltd., and M/s. Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. for establishment of steel plants. While drafting the MOUs the criteria laid down vide Agenda No. 1 and criteria to be evolved by the Committee headed by Chief Secretary for allocation of mineral rights will be taken into account. It was also decided that the commitments entered into the MOU already signed with the Bhushan Group with regard to allocation of mineral rights will be honoured in respect of the two companies together. 53. The proceedings of these meetings were also approved by the Chief Minister and this appears from paragraph 6 of the additional affidavit dated 22.3.2007 filed by the State. Thereafter, two letters after they were approved by the Law Department and by the Advocate General were sent to two companies between whom merger had failed. Legal advice was obtained under the order of the Chief Minister. The letter which has been addressed to the Petitioner is at Annexure-37 to the writ petition and in the said letter the concluding paragraph is as follows: Therefore, the State Government have decided that a fresh MOU is to be signed by M/s. Bhushan Ltd on the lines of the MOUs being signed with other Companies to ensure* a level playing field. A model draft MOU is enclosed for your kind reference. 54. In this matter discussions were again held by tne Chief Minister with the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the Petitioner company at 6 P.M. on 27.2.2004 and thereafter with Mr. Neeraj Singal, Managing Director of BSSL and Mr. B.B. Singal, Chairman of both Petitioner and BSSL at 7 P.M. on that date. This has been disclosed in Annexure-N to the aforesaid additional affidavit filed by the State. Neeraj Singal, Managing Director of BSSL and Mr. B.B. Singal, Chairman of both Petitioner and BSSL at 7 P.M. on that date. This has been disclosed in Annexure-N to the aforesaid additional affidavit filed by the State. In the meantime BSSL signed a fresh MOU with the State Government on 3.11.2005. Then by a communication dated 31.12.2005 the Petitioner was asked to sign a fresh MOU. To that the Petitioner raised an objection by its letter dated 23.12.2006 and then a reminder was given to the Petitioner on 9.5.2006 to sign a fresh MOU. However, the Petitioner instead of signing a fresh MOU filed the writ petition on 8th May, 2006, inter alia, invoking the principle of promissory estoppel. 55. It may be noted in this connection that despite the non-signing of separate agreement by the Petitioner, the State Government has fulfilled its promise to the Petitioner company on various aspects so that the Petitioner can set up the steel plant in the State, accordance with its promise the State Government has done the following: (a) Initiated land acquisition proceedings for allotment of land and land has been allotted to the Petitioner. (b) Took appropriate steps for making available the supply of water and source of water has been allotted to the Petitioner. (c) Took all possible steps to enable the Petitioner to have supply of electricity. (d) Took all steps to enable the Petitioner to obtain various clearances. (e) Took all steps to enable the Petitioner to get supply of coal. 56. In view of the State's fulfilling all its commitments, the Petitioner company has set up its steel plant in the said area and the same is in a running condition. 57. The only grievance of the Petitioner is that the State Government has not acted according to its commitment in recommending the Petitioner's application to the Central Government for grant of mining lease in accordance with the MOU dated 15.5.2002. 58. The entire thrust of argument of the Petitioner's counsel is that the Petitioner has the sole right to have his application for mining lease recommended by the State Government in respect of the area mentioned in the MOU of 15.5.2002, namely the Joda-Barbil sector of Keonjhar district for 96 million tonnes for fifty years requirement of 1.2 million tonnes capacity of Steel Plant. At the same time, it also has the sole right of having his application considered for captive iron ore mines of 128 million tones deposit (BF grade) in the district of Sundargarh to meet its requirement of 2.8 million tonnes Capacity for 50 years. Petitioner's case is that this Court should hold that the State Government being bound by the promise under MOU dated 15.5.2002 will not consider the mining application of any other party in respect of the aforesaid area. 59. It is difficult for this Court to accept the aforesaid proposition. First of all, the promise in the MOU dated 15.5.2002 was not made to the Petitioner alone but it was made to the Bhusan Group of Companies. Secondly, the consideration of application for mining lease has to go through statutory process. The State Government cannot either abridge or enlarge the said statutory process. Ultimately, the mining lease has to be granted by the Central Government. Under the Constitutional provision mining is an occupied field of legislation by the Central Government. 60. The application for grant of mining lease is totally controlled by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the MMRD Act') and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called the 'said Rules') framed u/s 13 of the MMRD Act. The MMRD Act is a regulatory statute. MMRD Act and the said rules are a complete Code by themselves. From the filing of an. application for mining lease and all its subsequent stages thereafter are controlled by detailed statutory provision. Even the application for mining lease, to be made under Rule 22 of the said Rules, has to be made in Form-I, which is a statutory form. 61. Therefore the State Government cannot make any promise about recommendation on such an application for mining lease. This is not a matter to be decided by the State Government in its executive or administrative capacity. The matter is left to be decided on the basis of quasi judicial process prescribed by statute from the beginning till the end. If the appropriate officer of the State Government does not recommend the application, the applicant has a statutory remedy of revision to the Central Government. Therefore, the entire thing is covered under the thicket of a quasi judicial proceedings. Here, a promise of the State Government is actually of no consequence. 62. If the appropriate officer of the State Government does not recommend the application, the applicant has a statutory remedy of revision to the Central Government. Therefore, the entire thing is covered under the thicket of a quasi judicial proceedings. Here, a promise of the State Government is actually of no consequence. 62. The only promise which the State Government can ultimately make in this regard is to have an application for mining lease considered on merits. Beyond that any other promise of the State Government, if any, for a mining lease has no meaning. It is well-known that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot prevail against a statute nor can it be enforced against a statute and specially by Court when there is no existing promise in favour of the Petitioner alone and even if there is any, the same also is redundant in view of the statutory provisions of law. 63. This Court cannot give a direction ignoring the Statutory dispensation governing the field. Apart from that other interested parties might have made similar application. If the statute provides for consideration of such applications, this Court cannot direct sole consideration of the Petitioner's application to the exclusion of other applicants. 64. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is founded on equity and of which reasonableness is a very important facet. Reasonableness is also one of the governing principles of Constitutional jurisprudence. Therefore, in the name of enforcing the principle of promissory estoppel, this Court cannot pass any unreasonable direction. 65. It cannot be disputed that in the instant case the State Government has fulfilled all its promises to the Petitioner about granting other facilities mentioned above so that the Petitioner can set up its steel plant in the State of Orissa. In fact it has set up the plant. Therefore, it cannot be said that by relying on the promises of the State Government in other spheres, the Petitioner has acted to its prejudice or detriment. The investment which it has made are investments in respect of its own steel plant which has come up in the State and has started its production as such the Petitioner has not suffered any prejudice. 66. The investment which it has made are investments in respect of its own steel plant which has come up in the State and has started its production as such the Petitioner has not suffered any prejudice. 66. The only so-called grievance of the Petitioner appears to be that it seeks a kind of monopoly in the matter of filing of application for mining lease in respect of the area mentioned in MOU of 15.5.2002 and it possibly wants to prevent others from filing any application in respect of those areas. As already noted above, the filing of application for mining lease and its consideration is completely controlled by statute. If statute provides other applicants a right to file application for mining lease in the area in question, the promise of the State, if any, cannot stultify those provisions. 67. A person seeking equitable relief on the basis of Promissory estoppel must also do equity. But in the instant case, the Petitioner is trying to monopolize its right to apply for mining lease in that area to the exclusion of others and wants this Court to hold that the State is bound by equitable principles of promissory estoppel to recommend only its applications for grant of lease to the Central Government. Such a prayer is inequitable on the face of it and is also contrary to the MMRD Act and the Rules. The case of the Petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted in view of the age old maximum that he who seeks equity must do equity. Therefore, the various decisions which have been cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of his case on promissory estoppel have no application in the facts of the case. The decisions which were cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are follows: (a) The judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of The Ganges Manufacturing Co. v. Sousujmul reported in ILR (1880) Cal 669. (b) Vij Resins Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, . (c) B.L. Sreedhar and Others Vs. K.M. Munireddy (Dead) and Others, . (d) MRF Ltd., Kottayam Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax and Others, . (e) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, . (f) ABL International Ltd. and Another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, . (c) B.L. Sreedhar and Others Vs. K.M. Munireddy (Dead) and Others, . (d) MRF Ltd., Kottayam Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax and Others, . (e) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, . (f) ABL International Ltd. and Another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, . (g) Gillet v. Holt and Anr. reported in (2002) 2 AER 289, and (h) Robertson v. Minister of Pensions reported in (1948) 2 AER 767. 68. The principle that there cannot be any estoppel against statute is too well established to require any authority. Even then reference be made to the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of: (a) M/S. Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Etc. Etc. Vs. Secretary, Revenue Department Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Others Etc. Etc. in paragraphs 20 and 21 at page 464-465 of the report. (b) Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. Sampuran Singh in paragraph 13 at page 499-500 of the report. (c) Bangalore Development Authority and Others Vs. R. Hanumaiah and Others in paragraph 30 at page 526 and also in paragraph 31 at page 527 of the report. 69. Therefore the argument of promissory estoppel urged by the Petitioner fails and on the ground of promissory estoppel, the Petitioner does not have any case. 70. Therefore, the Government's communication dated 31.12.2005 whereby the Petitioner was asked to sign a fresh MOU certainly cannot be set aside by the Court as the said stand on the part of the Government is not at all unreasonable or arbitrary. 71. This was the main challenge in the writ petition. But in course of hearing the writ petition, Anr. order was passed during the pendency of the writ petition pursuant to an interim direction of this Court in this proceeding. That was the order dated 18.6.2007 passed by the Joint Secretary, Steel & Mines purporting to reject the Petitioner's application for mining lease. 72. On the Petitioner's application dated 4.12.2001 for mining lease for iron ore over an area of 10483 hectares in village Thakurani R.F. in the district of Keonjhar, the Joint Secretary, Government of Orissa, Steel & Mines Department issued a show cause notice, inter alia, on the ground that the Petitioner's application was incomplete inasmuch as it does not contain all the documents. It was also stated that the area in respect of which the Petitioner made the application has not been thrown upon under Rule 59-A of the said Rules and as such the application is premature under Rule 60 thereof. It was also alleged that the Petitioner, a new entrant in mining and prospecting, has no technical knowledge or experience nor has the Petitioner employed any technical expert and as such the application of the Petitioner is liable to be rejected. 73. On the aforesaid basis the Petitioner was given the show cause notice under Rule 26(1)(c) of the said Rules and was asked to appear before the Joint Secretary, Government of Orissa, Steel & Mines Department for a personal hearing failing which the Petitioner's application was to be disposed of as per law. The Petitioner gave a reply to the said show cause notice, but no hearing took place as the Petitioner had filed this writ petition and this Court had granted a status quo order on 15.5.2006 on the matters covered by several Annexures including Annexure-59, the said show cause notice. 74. In the course of hearing the writ petition it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the State that the hearing of the show cause proceeding has been stalled in view of interim order granted by this Court. It was also submitted that several other application for grant of mining lease could not be processed and hearing of such applications had also been stalled pursuant to the interim order. 75. Upon hearing such submission, this Court modified the interim order of status quo and allowed the matter to be heard by the Joint Secretary and to that effect an order was passed by this Court on 22.3.2007. By the said order this Court made it clear that the show cause notice should be treated as a combined one under Rule 26(1) and 26(3) of the said Rules and the Petitioner should appear before the Joint Secretary, Government of Orissa, Department of Steel & Mines on 28.3.2007 along with a copy of the Court's order and thereafter the Joint Secretary will give a date of hearing. It was also made clear that on that date the Joint Secretary will hear the parties for the purpose of making good the deficiencies pointed out in the show cause notice dated 18.1.2006 and the Court fixed the time schedule within which the Joint Secretary was to pass the order upon hearing the parties and the said order is to be sent to this Court in a sealed cover. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said order the Petitioner appeared before the Joint Secretary on 28.3.2007 along with a copy of the order. Thereupon the Joint Secretary fixed 11.4.2007 as the date of hearing and the matter was heard on 11.4.2007 and the Petitioner made a written representation before the Joint Secretary on 11.4.2007. In the Petitioner's representation the extract of the report of the Geological Survey of India was quoted. The Joint Secretary then asked the Petitioner to submit the entire report of the Geological Survey of India and the Petitioner submitted the same on the next day and also the report of the Director of Mines dated 8.11.2002. So, hearing was concluded on 11.4.2007 before the Joint Secretary and all the documents were submitted by the Petitioner by 12.4.2007. 76. It is the Petitioner's case that thereafter no hearing had taken place. However, the order could not be passed within the time frame stipulated in the order of this Court dated 27.3.2007 and this Court extended the time. Thereafter the Joint Secretary passed the order dated 18.6.2007 and it was sent to this Court in a sealed cover and was opened by this Court on 26.6,2007 and it was made available to the counsel for the Petitioner. However the said order was already available with the learned Counsel for the State. The parties were given liberty to file affidavit challenging the said order in this proceeding. Such affidavits were filed and the order was assailed before us in this proceeding. 77. Now the point which has been urged by the learned Counsel for the State is that the said order can only be challenged by filing a revision under Rule 54 of the said Rules before the Central Government and without exhausting that remedy the said order cannot be challenged before the writ Court. 78. 77. Now the point which has been urged by the learned Counsel for the State is that the said order can only be challenged by filing a revision under Rule 54 of the said Rules before the Central Government and without exhausting that remedy the said order cannot be challenged before the writ Court. 78. We are unable to accept the said contention raised by the learned Counsel for the State for the reason indicated below. First of all, the order dated 18.6.2007 was passed pursuant to the leave granted by this Court and the Court while permitting the Joint Secretary to pass the order made it clear that after the order is passed the same should be sent to this Court in a sealed cover. Prior to that it was made clear that the Petitioner shall appear before the Joint Secretary without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the wit petition. After the order was passed, this Court by an order dated 26.6.2007 directed the Petitioner to challenge the said order by filing an affidavit in the pending writ petition. Similar direction was given to the State and opposite party No. 2. 79. In the affidavit which the Petitioner has filed challenging the said order dated 18.6.2007 various contentions have been raised on the merits of the order dated 18.6.2007. 80. We are not going into those contentions on merit. But one thing appears to be quite clear that hearing in connection with the order dated 18.6.2007 was completed before the Joint Secretary on 11.4.2007 and the filing of documents was also completed by 12.4.2007. Then the Joint Secretary without informing anything to the Petitioner consulted the report of the Director of Mines dated 31.5.2007. This appears from page 3 of the said impugned order. Therefore, the report being No. 5397 dated 31.5.2007 and its enclosures were the materials which were considered by the Joint Secretary and the impugned order was passed upon consideration of those materials. Admittedly the Petitioner had no clue of what those materials are about and was never served with a copy of that report. So the decision making process of the Joint Secretary was unfair. 81. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.6.2007 was passed on consideration of materials, copies of which were not given to the Petitioner and to its prejudice the order dated 18.6.2007 was passed. So the decision making process of the Joint Secretary was unfair. 81. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.6.2007 was passed on consideration of materials, copies of which were not given to the Petitioner and to its prejudice the order dated 18.6.2007 was passed. In our opinion, this constitutes a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 82. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Government Vs. Sabir Hussain. (See paragraphs 13 and 17 of the said judgment). To the same effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc.. (See paragraphs 25 and 26). Therefore, an order which is passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice can be challenged before the writ Court and in respect of such an order alternative remedy is not a bar. This has been laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of cases and reference is made to some of them, namely, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. L.K. Ratna and Others. (See paragraph 17 of the judgment). Similar view has been taken in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others. (See paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment). The same view has also been taken in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 . (See paragraph 22). 83. In view of the aforesaid clear legal position settled by the Apex Court, an order which is passed in violation of principles of natural justice can be challenged by filing a writ petition and in such a case non-exhaustion of alternative remedy is not a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. So for this reason alone, namely, the noncompliance with the principles of natural justice in passing the order dated 18.6.2007, the said order is quashed. This Court, however, has not considered the various submissions made by the Petitioner assailing the said order on merits. Those questions are kept open. 84. So for this reason alone, namely, the noncompliance with the principles of natural justice in passing the order dated 18.6.2007, the said order is quashed. This Court, however, has not considered the various submissions made by the Petitioner assailing the said order on merits. Those questions are kept open. 84. For the reasons discussed above this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (a) This Court cannot set aside the communication of the State Government dated 31.12.2005 asking the Petitioner to sign afresh MOU. (b) The Petitioner should sign a fresh MOU with the Government as early as possible. (c) The Petitioner's application for mining lease dated 4.12.2001 should be considered afresh by the appropriate authorities of the State Government in accordance with law along with other similarly placed applicants. In considering the said lease the authorities must have regard to all relevant materials including the report of the Director of Mines dated 8.11.2002 as well as the report dated 31.5.2007 with copy to the Petitioner. (d) The Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the subsequent report of the Director of Mines dated 31.5.2007 in the hearing which will be afforded to the Petitioner by the appropriate authority of the State in connection with the show cause notice dated 18.1.2006. (e) All points taken by the Petitioner on merits challenging the order dated 18.6.2007 are available to be canvassed by the Petitioner at the appropriate stage. (f) However, this Court makes it clear that the Petitioner's application for mining lease will be considered upon the Petitioner's executing a fresh MOU with the State Government along with other applicants in respect of the same mining. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of, but without any order as to costs. N. Prusty, J. 85. I agree.