JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. These appeals are filed by the writ petitioners, who are registered as forest lessees with the Forest Department of J&K State. The writ petitioners had secured various forest leases in Jammu Division of the State by validly executing the lease agreements. While they were working in their respective lease areas, unprecedented and heavy snowfall took place in February/march, 1979 resulting in heavy damage to the forest crop of the State and even in the adjoining State of Himachal Pradesh. In July, 1979, the government of Jammu and Kashmir with a view to salvage the damaged trees and saving the standing trees from potential fire hazards is stated to have taken a decision to mark and handover all such damaged and fallen trees to the working lessees in their respective leased areas/compartment as well as adjoining/adjacent compartments by marking and handing over for extraction of the lessees holding their leases in the adjoining areas. The writ petitioners were asked to execute supplementary agreement in respect of the adjoining/adjacent compartment for handing over to them to extract the damaged marked trees from the adjoining areas and also made the provision of the principal lease agreements to be applicable to the adjoining compartments as well. The salvage and removal of the damaged and fallen trees in the existing leased compartments were already covered by the principal lease agreements. 2. As per the supplementary agreements the writ petitioners and other lessees to whom the adjoining areas were allotted for removal of damaged and fallen trees the extension of the working period was also granted. The said supplementary agreements also provided for fixation of price (without specifically mentioning the actual rate) of the additional trees allotted to the lessees in the adjoining compartments. The working lessees, including the writ petitioners after having executed the supplementary agreements for the respective adjoining areas commenced their work in the adjoining compartments as directed by the Chief Conservator of Forests and while the working was going on, the forest department embarked upon an exercise to work out the rates, which were to be charged from the lessees in respect of the snow fallen trees allotted to them in the adjoining compartments. The writ petitioners associated with the fixation of rates for the snow fallen trees in the adjoining areas. The writ petitioners associated with the fixation of rates for the snow fallen trees in the adjoining areas. The forest department wanted to fix 1979 average lease rates of the division whereas the writ petitioners and other lessees insisted that the quality of the snow fallen and damaged material allotted in the adjoining compartments and the scattered nature of work which involved very high working expenditure and investment did not justify fixing of 1979 average lease rates. It was also pointed out that the standing trees marked in the principal leased compartments were of much better quality and the working was compact and concentrated making extraction and use of machinery viable while in the adjoining compartments the lessees had to dependent mainly on manual labour for operation of salvage and removal. According to the writ petitioners, the forest department ultimately accepted that 1979 average lease rates could not be applicable to salvage and removal of snow fallen trees in the adjoining compartments. It is also stated in the affidavit that in similar circumstances, the damaged snow fallen trees was put to open auction by Government of Himachal Pradesh in the areas adjoining the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which could fetch only nominal price for such snow fallen trees. It is further stated in the affidavit that by government order No.130-1st of 1980 dated 18.09.1980 the government fixed 1979 average lease rates of the division for snow fallen trees in the adjoining compartments subject to rebate of 30% in case of Debdar and Kail trees and 40% in case of Fir trees. The writ petitioners and other lessees, who were working in the adjoining compartments approached the department to mark the half broken and dry trees and on arrival of the marking list in the office of Chief Conservator of Forests, the lessees claimed that trees so marked i.e. half broken and dry trees which were standing, on the basis of the provision in the principal and supplementary agreements, which according to the writ petitioners, were considered at the highest level resulting in Cabinet decision No.266 dated 15.06.1981 whereby the government ordered the allotment of half broken dry trees to the working lessees in their adjoining compartments. The Government issued consequential order namely Government Order No.100-1st of 1981 dated 19.06.1981. The Government issued consequential order namely Government Order No.100-1st of 1981 dated 19.06.1981. It was also stated that the rates to be charged from snow fallen and dry trees in the adjoining compartments shall be 1979 average lease rates with a rebate of 30% in case of Dabdar and Kail trees and 40% in case of Fir trees and on handing over the dry and half broken trees to the lessees in the adjoining compartments. 3. The government passed another order on 29.01.1982 to the effect that no further extension in the working period of the principal leases will be granted under any circumstances. The said decision was challenged before this Court in OWP No.141/1982 etc. and according to the appellants thereafter the attitude of the government changed and the standing dry and half broken trees marked in the adjoining compartments worked by the lessees, which had to be handed over to the writ petitioners and other lessees, were not handed over, hence WP No.350/1982 was filed for handing over additional marked standing dry and half broken trees. The writ petition filed namely OWP No.141/1982 was allowed by this Court on 05.05.1983. Though appeal was preferred the same was withdrawn subsequently. 4. Insofar the standing dry and half broken trees and for grant of extension, which issue was pending before this Court, the Government appointed a higher powered Cabinet Sub Committee for finding out an amicable solution. According to the writ petitioners, the Committee submitted its report to the Government and consequently Government order No.205 of 1984 dated 22.02.1984 was issued allowing extension of working period upto December, 1984 to enable the lessees the extract trees from the main lease and also those allotted to them in the adjoining compartments. The government ordered execution of fresh agreements, which were also executed with a view to complete the work in the principal and adjoining leased areas within the time allowed. The government ordered execution of fresh agreements, which were also executed with a view to complete the work in the principal and adjoining leased areas within the time allowed. For setting the controversy regarding entitlement of the lessees to the standing dry and half broken trees in the adjoining compartments, the department prepared the bills as per the directions of the Chief Conservator of Forests in his letter dated 14.10.1983 and on receipt of the some of the bills the writ petitioners made enquiries as to how the rates were fixed and at that time they came to know that the government had issued government order No.61-1st of 1982 dated 30.04.1982 stating that the action taken by the forest department in allotting half broken and dry trees to the forest lessees/State Forest Corporation at 1979 average lease rates for the division without any rebate is hereby confirmed. In any such division where average lease rates are not applicable the other lease rates of nearby division should be adopted. The said decision of the government, the letter of Chief Conservator of Forests dated 14.10.1983 and the consequential bills are challenged before the Writ Court by raising various grounds including the principal of promissory estoppel as well as decision of the government without stating any reason denying the rebate. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions against which these appeals are preferred. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the forest lessees which were given lease of forest compartments were bound by the amount fixed for the timber they have to remove. The snow fallen/damaged trees which were in the adjoining compartments were also permitted to be removed by the adjacent lessees for which the Government in Government Order No. 130/FST of 1980 dated 18.09.1980 granted rebate of 30% on Deodar and Kail trees taking average lease rates of 1979 as the basis and 40% rebate on Fir trees. No dry or half broken or top broken tree was marked for removal. It is also the contention of the senior counsel that subsequently a decision was taken to remove the dry, half broken and top broken trees from the Forest on Silvicultural considerations and those trees were also marked and allowed to be removed by the lessees. No dry or half broken or top broken tree was marked for removal. It is also the contention of the senior counsel that subsequently a decision was taken to remove the dry, half broken and top broken trees from the Forest on Silvicultural considerations and those trees were also marked and allowed to be removed by the lessees. At that time, no rate was fixed for half broken, top broken and dry standing trees and no rebate is granted by the government even though the Chief Conservator of Forest recommended for granting rebate and without considering the said recommendations, the Government passed an order in Government Order No. 61/FST of 1982 dated 30.04.1982, that too, without stating any reason. Learned senior counsel heavily relied on Government Order No. FST/32/66 of 1966 dated 12.04.1966 and contend that dry standing trees or dry fallen trees whenever sold shall be charged at half rates except dry Deodar which shall be sold at th of the rates and the green fallen trees will be charged at full rates. It is also the case of the appellants that subsequent to the Government Order and during the pendency of the writ petitions, the Government constituted an Expert Committee through Government Order No. 145/FST of 1985 dated 31.08.1985 comprising of three retired Chief Conservators of Forest and the said Committee recommended for conversion of dry trees and unfit volume of trees as green fit volume by applying standard conversion volume formula and then the sanctioned rates be applied. The Government rejected the said report without giving any answer /reason to the said recommendations. 6. The Government rejected the said report without giving any answer /reason to the said recommendations. 6. In short, the submissions of learned senior counsel for the appellants are that the half broken green/dry trees which were granted permission to be removed cannot be compared to the green fallen trees or full standing trees for the purpose of valuation and nobody can dispute the damage caused to the trees either due to dry or half broken trees and non consideration of said aspect by the Government while passing the impugned order in Government Order No. 61/FST of 1982 dated 30.04.1982 as well as the subsequent communication issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest in letter No. 1623- 28/CVII-misc.30 dated 14.10.1983 based on which the bills were raised and non-consideration of the said aspect shows total non-application of mind even through Government itself granted rebate to half broken snow fallen trees by Government Order No. 130/FST of 1980 dated 18.09.1980. The logic applied to the half broken trees due to snow fall is equally applicable to the dry or half broken standing trees. 7. When the matter was heard finally on 09.12.2015, having regard to the non-mentioning of any reason to reject the claim of the rebate, this Court thought fit to peruse the files relating to Government Order issued in Government Order No. 61/FST of 1982 dated 30.04.1982 and the learned Advocate General, argued the non-availability of the promissory estoppel to the facts of this case, submitted that he will produce the files/records pertaining to the Government Order which was impugned before the learned Writ Court and the matter was adjourned to 17.12.2015 enabling the learned Advocate General to produce the record/files. 8. On 17.12.2015, learned Advocate General, on instructions, submitted that records relating to the Government Order was gutted in fire and the Forest Department has taken up the matter with General Administration Department by communication dated 16.12.2015 and some more time may be granted to trace the files at least from the General Administration Department including the Cabinet Decision No. 127 dated 05.04.1982. When the matter was again heard on 29.12.2015, learned Advocate General produced the copy of letter of General Administration Department No. GDC/SCD/2011/SB dated 18.12.2015 which conveyed that the old record of the Cabinet Section including the required cabinet decision was ruined in the deluge of September 2014. When the matter was again heard on 29.12.2015, learned Advocate General produced the copy of letter of General Administration Department No. GDC/SCD/2011/SB dated 18.12.2015 which conveyed that the old record of the Cabinet Section including the required cabinet decision was ruined in the deluge of September 2014. The said letter dated 18.12.2015 was placed before the Court by learned Advocate General which reads as follows: "The undersigned is directed to refer the Principal Secretary to Government, Forest, Environment and Ecology Department to his O.M No. FST/Lit/Leas/236/2015 dated 16.12.2015 of the Cabinet Section, including the required cabinet decision was ruined in the deluge of September 2014". 9. We have considered the said fact as well as the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Advocate General. 10. In so far as the contention of the appellants which was forcefully argued by the learned senior counsel that the respondents are estopped from not giving rebate to the half broken/dry standing trees which were ordered to be removed, as the lower authorities have recommended for grant of rebate and the Government having granted rebate to the snow fallen trees by Government Order No. 130-FST of 1980 dated 18.09.1980, believing the said promise, the appellants have removed the half broken green/dry trees and therefore denying rebate to the half broken dry/green standing trees which were not covered by the original lease agreement is hit by the Principles of Promissory Estoppel, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the Competent Authority, namely, the Government or the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest have not decided the issue to give rebate to the half broken green/dry trees which were standing and merely because the rebate was given to snow fallen trees, the appellants cannot presume that the they will get similar rebate in so far as the half broken dry standing trees. It is well settled principle of law that for succeeding in the plea of promissory estoppel, pleadings must show that promise was made by the competent authority who is empowered to give such promise in writing. The said issue is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 511 ( Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and ors v. M/S Adarsh Textiles and anr.). The said issue is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 511 ( Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and ors v. M/S Adarsh Textiles and anr.). In Para 28, it is held that the principle of "promissory estoppel is not attracted as the State Government has not extended any assurance by its conduct much less unequivocal one, thus, there was no question of industries acting upon it" 11. Here in this case, before giving permission or allowing the appellants to remove the half broken dry/green standing trees, admittedly the Government which is the competent authority has not decided to give any rebate. Thus, the Principles of Promissory Estoppel urged by the learned senior counsel for the appellants was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge and we affirm the said finding rendered by the Writ Court. 12. The second contention raised by the learned senior counsel that half broken green/dry trees which were not the subject matter of original lease and which were permitted to be removed by the lessees/adjoining lessees, there is every justification to contend that it cannot be compared with standing trees or fallen trees. It is a fact that the stem of the broken trees will definitely a damaged one either due to velocity of the wind or due to dryness. Hence, the appellants may be justified in their contention that the same cannot be compared to that of green trees to claim full amount without any rebate. Some letters were placed on record to show that the lower level authorities have recommended for grant of rebate. 13. The Expert Committee appointed by the Government during the pendency of the writ petition also submitted its report recommending the rebate. It is also to be seen that in the Government Order dated 61-FST of 1982 dated 30.04.1982, no reason is stated to claim the full amount without rebate to the half broken/dry standing trees. It is true that even if no reason is mentioned in the order, if reasons are recorded in the related file, it cannot be treated as arbitrary and the Court is bound to look into the file. It is true that even if no reason is mentioned in the order, if reasons are recorded in the related file, it cannot be treated as arbitrary and the Court is bound to look into the file. Bearing the said principle in mind, this Court, as stated supra, directed the learned Advocate General to produce the entire file to peruse as to whether the Government had considered all relevant facts while passing Government Order No. 61-FST of 1982 dated 30.04.1982. Unfortunately, even though the case is pending before this Court, the record was not preserved and a casual approach was made by the respondent to destroy the record which was expected to be preserved in the Forest Department till the lis is over. The General Administration Department also by one reason or the other could not preserve the file in its safe custody. 14. In such circumstances, this Court is unable to find out as to whether decision making authority actually has considered all relevant facts while denying the rebate to half broken/dry standing trees which were permitted to be removed by the appellants. It is also true that for snow fallen trees, 30%-40% rebate was granted by the Government in Government Order No. 130-FST of 1980 dated 18.09.1980. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 629 of 2003 (State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh and ors) decided on 25th August, 2015 held that executive orders must contain reasons and reasons cannot be stated in the counter affidavit. In other words, the validity of the order must be tested only on the basis of reasons assigned in the order and not in other respects. Para 4 of the said judgment reads thus: "There can be no gainsaying that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. It is beyond cavil that any Authority cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in the impugned action...." 15. It is beyond cavil that any Authority cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in the impugned action...." 15. In such circumstances, this Court is left with only one option namely to quash Government Order and remand the matter to the Government to reconsider the issue of grant of rebate or not to the appellants for half broken green/dry standing trees, permitted to be removed which were really removed by the appellants and take a fresh decision by considering all relevant facts having regard to the low value of the half broken dry/green trees. 16. When this Court asked a specific query to the learned Advocate General on this aspect, the learned Advocate General fairly submitted that the matter may be remitted to the Government for fresh consideration having regard to the non availability of the file relating to the impugned orders to justify as to whether any reason is mentioned to reject the claim of the rebate for the half broken dry/green standing trees which were admittedly not covered under the original lease agreement. In such circumstances, the orders impugned before the writ Court as well as the consequential bills raised by the Forest Department are set aside and the respondents are granted opportunity to consider all aspects with regard to grant of rebate or not to the half broken dry/green standing trees which were allowed to be removed by the appellants by way of supplementary lease agreements without fixing any rebate, bearing in mind the factual aspects pleaded in these appeals except the claim of promissory estoppel and to arrive at fresh decision. The respondents are directed to consider the same and take a decision within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.