Hon'ble VYAS, J.—This writ petition has been filed by Kalptaru Power Transmission Ltd.- a registered company having its registered office at 101, Part III, GIDC Estate, Sector 28, Gandhinagar (Gujarat) against NIT issued by respondent No. 3. Following prayer has been made by the petitioner company in this writ petition: "(i) It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may kindly call for the entire record pertaining to impugned NIT dated 19.8.2011 (Annex. 6) and after examining the same be pleased to declare the impugned NIT dated 19.8.2011 (Annex. 6) null and void and be quashed and set aside. (ii) By appropriate Writ, Order or direction the respondents, precisely Respondent No. 3 & 4 be restrained from inviting tender dated 19.8.2011 for item No. 1 i.e. To set up and 4.9 MWH biomass based Co-Generation with export equipments power plant and that to extent the item No. 1 of the NIT dated 19.8.2011 to be declared null and void and be quashed and set aside. (iii) by without prejudice to above, by an appropriate writ, order of direction, Clause 10.2 of the Policy of 2010 may kindly be declared illegal and be declared ultravires of the constitution of India and therefore, be quashed and set aside. (iv) by an approrpriate writ, order or direction, the respondent state and RREC may be restrained the Respondent No. 3 to install and commission biomass Based Co-generation Power Plant in Chak 23 F, Kaminpura, Tehsil Srikaranpur, Distt. Sriganganagar. (v) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the sanction granted by the State of Rajasthan to the Respondent No. 3 to install biomass power plant of 4.9 MW situated at Chak 23 F, Kaminpura, Tehsil Srikaranpur, Distt. Sriganganagar, may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed. (v) Any other or direction, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. (vi) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Virendra Lodha, assisted by Mr. Sriganganagar, may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed. (v) Any other or direction, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. (vi) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Virendra Lodha, assisted by Mr. Manoj Bhandari, appearing for the petitioner submits that the State of Rajasthan promulgated a policy in the year 1999 for promoting generation of power through non-conventional energy sources, under which, the petitioner company was granted licence and it invested more than 700 million rupees in biomass energy generation under the Policy of 1999 and installed two biomass based power generation plants, first 7.8 MW at Chak 27 BB, Tehsil Padampur (District Sriganganagar) and, second, 8 MW at village Khatoli, Tehsil Uniara (District Tonk). 3. In the policy of 1999 an amendment was made in sub-clause 8(i) of the Policy on 13.11.2001, in which, it was specifically provided that if the State Government is satisfied with the progress achieved in the setting up of a biomass power plant at a duty approved site, no other biomass power plant shall be allowed within a radial distance of 50 KM of the site of the first power plant. Said provision was further reiterated in the new Policy framed by the State Government for promoting generation of electricity through non-conventional energy sources 2004. In clause 16.1(a) of the Policy of 2004 it was specifically provided that, "....However, such review shall be held not before 2011." The State Government further promulgated a new policy as Policy for Promoting General of Electricity from Biomass 2010 and that new scheme came into operation with effect from 26.2.2010. In that policy also, it is specifically provided under clause 10.10 that biomass power plants commissioned under earlier Policies of the State Government shall continue to be governed by the relevant policies in operation at the time of commissioning of the project. 4. In that policy also, it is specifically provided under clause 10.10 that biomass power plants commissioned under earlier Policies of the State Government shall continue to be governed by the relevant policies in operation at the time of commissioning of the project. 4. As per argument of learned counsel for the petitioner inspite of above provision in the new Policy of 2010, the Rajasthan Renewable Energy Sources (RREC) has registered vide PRN-32 dated 2.5.2011 4.9 MW biomass based power project of Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. at Chak 23 F, Kaminpura Tehsil Srikaranpur (District Sriganganagar) as per clause 10.2 of the new Policy of 2010 and granted sanction to respondent No. 3 for installing the biomass power plant in the aforesaid area is within the vicinity of 50 km. from the petitioner's power plant. The sanction is liable to be quashed on the ground that the same is impermissible under the policies of 1999, 2004 and 2010. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention towards sub-clause 8(iv) of the amendment dated 13.11.2001 and clause 16.1 of the Policy of 2004 as well as clause 10.10 of the Policy of 2010, submits that as per above provisions of the Policies of 1999, 2004 and 2010, no permission can be granted for installation of new power plant within the radius of 50 km from the petitioner's unit installed at Padampur; but, the State Government granted sanction for installation of new power plant to respondent No. 3 within radial distance of 50 km of the petitioner's power plant which is not permissible under the Policy framed by the State Government at the time of installation of the petitioner's unit and in subsequent policies. Therefore, it is prayed that clause 10.2 of the Policy of 2010 which is contrary to clause 10.10 may be declared illegal and ultravires to the Constitution of India and, further, respondent State and RREC may be directed to restrain respondent No. 3 from installing and commissioning biomass based power generation plant in Chak 23, Srikaranpur (District Sriganganagar). 6. Therefore, it is prayed that clause 10.2 of the Policy of 2010 which is contrary to clause 10.10 may be declared illegal and ultravires to the Constitution of India and, further, respondent State and RREC may be directed to restrain respondent No. 3 from installing and commissioning biomass based power generation plant in Chak 23, Srikaranpur (District Sriganganagar). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per doctrine of promissory estoppal and legitimate expectation, the State Government is required to be restrained from allowing respondent No. 3 to install new biomass based power plant within radius of 50 km because at the time of installation of the unit by the petitioner company it was assured by way of providing specific clause in the Policy that no other plant will be permitted within the radial distance of 50 km of the first power plant and with the above legitimate expectation the petitioner company installed its plant, therefore, now under the garb of clause 10.2 of the Policy of 2010 the State Government cannot permit any other company to install new plant within the radial distance of 50 km because as per the doctrine of promissory estoppal the State Government cannot act contrary to the saving provisions of clause 10.10 provided in the new Policy, so also, they are required to follow the principle of legitimate expectation because upon assurance given by the State Government that no other unit will be permitted to be installed within the radial distance of 50 km but, now, the State Government is permitting respondent No. 3 to install new power plant within the radius of 25 km which is totally contrary to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 2002 (2) SCC 188 and judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2007(2) SCC 725 , in which, Hon'ble Apex Court held that doctrine of promissory estoppal applies even to the Govt. and public authorities. Likewise, as per the facts it appears that the State Govt. is flouting and contravening their own provisions of the policy framed in the year 1999 which is reiterated in subsequent policies up to 2010. Therefore, this writ petition may be allowed and relief prayed for may be granted and respondents may be restrained from installing the biomass based co-generation power plant at Chak 23 F, Kaminpura Tehsil Srikaranpur which is within the radial distance of 50 km. Therefore, this writ petition may be allowed and relief prayed for may be granted and respondents may be restrained from installing the biomass based co-generation power plant at Chak 23 F, Kaminpura Tehsil Srikaranpur which is within the radial distance of 50 km. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the Policies of 1999, 2004 and 2010. 8. It is true that in the Policy for promoting generation of power through non-conventional energy sources of the year 1999 an amendment was made vide notification dated 13.11.2001, in which, following sub-clause was added: "Sub clause 8 (iv) Reservation of 50 KM Area - If the State Government is satisfied with the progress achieved in the setting up of a biomass power plant at a duly approved site, no other biomass power plant shall be allowed within a radial distance of 50 KM of the site of the first power plant." 9. Thereafter, in the Policy of 2004, clause 16.1 (b) was incorporated which reads as follows: "(b) Projects cleared under policy dated 11.3.99 and complying with conditions laid down vide amendment dated 28.2.03 shall continue to enjoy 50 Km. reservation facility." 10. Similarly, in the Policy of 2010, Annex. 4, clause 10.10 was inserted which reads as under: "10.10 The Biomass Power Plants commissioned under earlier Policies of the State Government shall continue to be governed by the relevant Policies in operation at the time of commissioning of the project." 11. Upon perusal of the above clauses of the Policies framed by the State Government in the year 1999, 2004 and 2010, it is provided that if the State Government is satisfied with the progress achieved in the setting up of a biomass power plant at a duly approved site no other power plant will be allowed within the radial distance of 50 KM of the first power plant. The petitioner company installed two plants, first 7.8 MW at Chak 27 BB, Tehsil Padampur (District Sriganganagar) and, second, 8 MW at village Khatoli, Tehsil Uniara (District Tonk). Both the plants are sill operating. 12. The petitioner company installed two plants, first 7.8 MW at Chak 27 BB, Tehsil Padampur (District Sriganganagar) and, second, 8 MW at village Khatoli, Tehsil Uniara (District Tonk). Both the plants are sill operating. 12. I have also perused the Policy of 2010, in which, clause 10.2 is also inserted, in which, it is provided that biomass power project of less than 5 MW capacity can be set up within the reserved area of any plant of capacity and more with the permission of the RREC provided further that no area shall be kept reserved for biomass power project of the capacity of less than 5 MW. According to the said clause, a sanction was issued in favour of respondent No. 3 for installation of biomass based co-generation power plant of 4.9 MWH which is less than 5 MW capacity. Clause 10.2 reads as under: "10.2 Provided that Biomass Power Project of less than 5 MW capacity can be set up within thee reserved area of any plant of capacity of 5 MW and more with the permission of RREC. Provided further that no area shall be kept reserved for Biomass Power Project (s) of capacity less than 5 MW." 13. It appears that for consumption of energy at Ganganagar Sugar Mills, the State Government issued sanction in favour of the Sugar Mills in accordance with clause 10.2 for co-generation of power to use it for production of the Ganganagar Sugar Mills. Clause 10.2 specifically provided that with a view that rate of consumption of power energy is increasing fast due to increase in production, so also, the fact that almost entire population of the country has been brought within reach of availability of electricity energy. 14. Under the constitutional provisions, it is duty of the State Government to frame policies within the parameters of the Constitutional provisions for generating power in use public interest. Here, in this case, sanction has been issued in favour of the Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. for co-generation energy plant for consumption of power by the Sugar Mills and, that too, in accordance with clause 10.2 of the Policy of 2010. Here, in this case, sanction has been issued in favour of the Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. for co-generation energy plant for consumption of power by the Sugar Mills and, that too, in accordance with clause 10.2 of the Policy of 2010. Therefore, in any way the petitioner cannot claim any restriction upon the State not to allow installation of new power plant within the radial distance of 50 KM of the esisting power plant because the purpose of issuing sanction in favour of respondent No. 3 for installation of co-generation power plant is for consumption of electricity in the Sugar Mills. Clause 10.2 of the Policy of 2010 which is purposefully inserted for more production of energy cannot be termed in violation of any constitutional provision. More so, it is duty of the State Government to perform the sovereign functions in the public interest. 15. The judgements cited by learned counsel for the petitioner for applicability of the principle of promissory estoppal and legitimate expectation will not apply in this case because no sanction has been issued for installation of any energy generation plant at par with the petitioner's plant but sanction has been granted for installation of power plant with 4.9 MW capacity at Ganganagar Sugar Mills in consonance with clause 10.2 of the policy. 16. In recent judgment, reported in 2011 (1) SCC 640 , Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. vs. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. & Another, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that policy/policy decision/policy matters can be interfered only when there is clear violation of the statute or constitutional provisions or the same is arbitrary. Para 39 of the said judgment runs as under: "39. We should not be understood to have meant that the judiciary should never interfere with administrative decisions. However, such interference should be only within narrow limits e.g. When there is clear violation of the statute or a constitutional provision, or there is arbitrariness in the Wedneshbury sense. It is the administrators and legislators who are entitled to frame policies and take such administrative decisions as they think necessary in the public interest. The Court should not ordinarily interfere with policy decision, unless clearly illegal." 17. It is the administrators and legislators who are entitled to frame policies and take such administrative decisions as they think necessary in the public interest. The Court should not ordinarily interfere with policy decision, unless clearly illegal." 17. Similarly, in the judgment of State of Himachal Pradesh & Others vs. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Singh, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 597 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently held that doctrine of legitimate expectation is not applicable to policy matters concerning continuance or discontinuance of subjects in technical education institutions. Para 21 and 22 of the said judgment read as follows: "21. The High Court has lost sight of the fact that educational is a dynamic system and courses/subjects have to keep changing with regard to market demand, employability potential, availability of infrastructure, etc. No institute can have a legitimate right or expectation to run a particular course forever and it is the pervasive power and authority vested in the Government to frame policy and guidelines for progressive and legitimate growth of the society and create balances in the arena inclusive of imparting technical education from time to time. Inasmuch as the institutions found fit were allowed to run other courses except the three mentioned above, the doctrine of legitimate expectation was not disregarded by the State. Inasmuch as ultimately it is the responsibility of the State to provide good education, training and employment, it is best suited to frame a policy or either modify alter a decision depending on the circumstance based on relevant and acceptable materials. The courts do not substitute their views in the decision of the State Government with regard to policy matters. In fact, the court must refuse to sit as appellate authority or super legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation or policy decision of the Government unless it runs counter to the mandate of the Constitution. 22. With regard to the importance of human resources, especially manpower requirement in various professional and technical fields, the Government is free to frame its policy, alter or modify the same as to the needs of the society. In such matters, the courts cannot interfere lightly as if the Government is unaware of the situation. 22. With regard to the importance of human resources, especially manpower requirement in various professional and technical fields, the Government is free to frame its policy, alter or modify the same as to the needs of the society. In such matters, the courts cannot interfere lightly as if the Government is unaware of the situation. Apart from these aspects, procedurally also the High Court has committed an error in quashing the Cabinet decision dated 18.7.2009 which was not challenged in the writ petition by raising valid grounds. Further, both parties were not afforded opportunity to put forth their stand as to the subsequent development, namely, the Cabinet decision dated 18.7.2009. For all these reasons, the impugned order of the High Court is to be interfered with. However, we permit the respondent Association or its members to challenge the said decision/order of the Government by way of fresh proceeding, if they so desire." 18. It appears from perusal of the above judgment that clause 10.2 of the Policy of 2010 is not in contravention of sub-clause 8 (iv) of the Policy of 1999. Due to acute shortage of energy the welfare State while performing its constitutional duties reasonably relaxed the provision of the earlier policy after due satisfaction in the larger public interest. Upon examination of State action under judicial review Courts should not casually interfere in the policy decision of the State because judicial review is permissible to the extent of assessing the State action whether it is within the parameters of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in this case, the action of the State Government and RREC while registering the respondent No. 3 and issuing sanction in favour of respondent No. 3 for installation of biomass based co-generation power plant with power export equipment for production of 4.9 MWH cannot be termed as illegal or unconstitutional. More so, clause 10.2 of the policy of the State Government framed in the year 2010 for promoting co-generation of electricity from biomass is in consonance with the constitutional provisions and in the public interest. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.