JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 02.12.2016. It appears that the petitioners had challenged Rule 8(2) and (4) of the Jammu and Kashmir Non-Forest Land Khair Trees 'Acacia Catechu' (Management Plan) Rules, 2016 SRO 111 of 2016 [2016 (27) JK Statutes JK-643] (herein-after referred to as 'the 2016 Rules'). At the outset, we asked the learned counsel for the appellants as to whether the challenge to the aforesaid provisions was on the ground that the same were ultra vires the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1996 (1939 A.D.) (herein-after referred to as the said Act). 2. We also asked the learned counsel for the appellants to indicate as to whether the challenge to the said provisions was on the ground that it was ultra vires the Constitution of India. The answer given by the learned counsel for the appellants to both these queries was in the negative. He, however, submitted that the said provisions were being challenged on the plea of Promissory Estoppel. 3. On going through the impugned judgment we find that the plea of Promissory Estoppel has only been referred to in passing. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the plea was not taken substantially before the learned Single Judge but the plea had been taken. 4. In order to understand the plea of the appellants, it is pertinent to note the provisions of Rule 8 of the 2016 Rules, which reads as under : 8. Marking felling conversion, transportation and disposal. (1) After the accord of marking and felling permission, the marking shall be conducted by the Block Forest Officer concerned. The felling, conversion and transportation shall be done under the Incharge of the area and shall submit an outturn report to the Range Officer. After receipt of the outturn report from Range Officer, the Divisional Forest Officer/Empowered Officer, as the case may be, may accord transportation permission. (2) The owner shall be free to sell their khair wood to anybody, for utilization within or outside the State on the price acceptable to him. (3) The registered co-operative societies/institutions formed by owners and registered under the Societies Registration Act VI 1998 Samvat (1941 A.D.) shall be eligible to deal with sale/purchase/disposal of khair wood. (2) The owner shall be free to sell their khair wood to anybody, for utilization within or outside the State on the price acceptable to him. (3) The registered co-operative societies/institutions formed by owners and registered under the Societies Registration Act VI 1998 Samvat (1941 A.D.) shall be eligible to deal with sale/purchase/disposal of khair wood. (4) The transportation permission may be issued within the State by the Divisional Forest Officer concerned and outside the State by the Empowered Officer, for a specified purpose under these rules in favour of the Khair Tree owner or any other agency to whom the owner may have sold the Khair wood, Khair firewood and other remnants of the felled Khair trees. (5) The fee of Rs.20/- per quintal within State and Rs.120/- per quintal for export outside State or such sum as may be fixed by the Government from time to time, shall be payable for transportation permission. (6) Marking, felling, conversion, transportation and disposal of the Khair wood from the non-forest land excluding private (Milkiyat) land shall be done by the Divisional Forest Officer after receiving approval from the Empowered Officer. (7) The Divisional Forest Officer shall submit a monthly return to Empowered Officer with regard to the felling, conversion, transportation in Form-E and a consolidated report at the end of financial year in Form-'F'." 5. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8 stipulates that the owner shall be free to sell Khair wood to anybody, for utilization within 'or outside the State' on the price acceptable to him. 6. Sub-Rule (4) of the Rule 8 deals with the transportation permission which includes transportation within the State and outside the State. Earlier Rules had been issued in 1995 under SRO 194. The 1995 Rules and in particular Rules 3 and 10(2) were relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants to suggest that under those rules, transportation outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir was not permissible. This is in respect of Khair trees. 7. Founded on this argument, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Katha units set up by the appellants were based on the understanding that the Khair trees which would be felled within the State of Jammu and Kashmir would be utilized for the Katha manufacturing units within the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 7. Founded on this argument, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Katha units set up by the appellants were based on the understanding that the Khair trees which would be felled within the State of Jammu and Kashmir would be utilized for the Katha manufacturing units within the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This, according to learned counsel for the appellants, was a promise which was made by the State and this promise has been reneged from by the new Rules of 2016 and in particular Rules 8(2) and 8(4) thereof. This is so, because under the Rules 2016, the transportation of Khair wood is permissible outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 8. There are several difficulties with this argument. The first difficulty is that the appellants' units had been set up prior to the issuance of SRO 194, through which the 1995 Rules came into force. Secondly, the no objection certificate which had been issued to the appellants did not hold out any promise for any supply of Khair wood to the Katha manufacturers. In fact, in the case of J&K Katha Products (Arnas), it was clearly indicated by the Chief Conservator of Forests as far back on 29.05.1989, that while they had no objection for the setting up of a Katha Manufacturing unit by the Jammu and Kashmir Katha Products (Arnas), the same would be set up at their own risk. It was also clarified that there was no commitment made for the supply of raw material for Katha manufacturers and it was up to them to arrange for the raw material in the shape of Khair wood from private sources other than the Forest Department under the rules governing felling of Khair trees from such land. 9. Therefore, as a matter of fact, we do not discern any promise being made by the State to the Katha manufacturers that the Khair wood which would be available within the State would be only for the purposes of Katha Manufacturers within the State and that the same could not be transported outside the State. No case for promissory estoppel, therefore, is made out. 10. Before concluding, we may point out that the learned Advocate General attracted our attention to an order dated 02.12.1996 passed by the Supreme court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 202 of 1995. No case for promissory estoppel, therefore, is made out. 10. Before concluding, we may point out that the learned Advocate General attracted our attention to an order dated 02.12.1996 passed by the Supreme court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 202 of 1995. In that order and with particular reference to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, it was directed that there would be no felling of trees permitted in any forest, public or private. A limited permission was granted, however, for felling of trees in forests or otherwise for execution of projects, but under strict compliance with the Jammu and Kashmir Forests Conservation Act, 1990 and other applicable laws. The disposal of the said trees was also to be done exclusively by the State Forests Corporation and no private agency was permitted to deal with the same. Any timber obtained from such trees was to be utilized within the State and preferably to meet the timber and fuel wood requirements of the local people, the Government and other local institutions. The movement of trees or timber from the State was also suspended except for the use of DGS and D. Railways and Defence. 11. This order was, however, subsequently modified on 16.09.2013. By virtue of the said order dated 16.09.2013, the Supreme Court permitted the felling of Khair trees in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, subject to the conditions stipulated in Paragraph 45 of the report of the Centrally Empowered Committee which were extracted in the said order itself. Condition No. vii indicated that the marking of trees for felling, the permission for the felling of trees, the inspection of felled trees, the permission for the transportation of the trees and the issuance of transit passes would be strictly regarded as per the notified rules, the Management Plan and Form 'A'. The reference to the notified rules was the draft of 2012, which was to be notified by the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This ultimately came to be the rules of 2016. 12. It, therefore, appears that there is no impediment on the felling of Khair Trees or the transportation of Khair Trees within and outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir, except for complying with the strict conditions laid down in the 2016 Rules. This ultimately came to be the rules of 2016. 12. It, therefore, appears that there is no impediment on the felling of Khair Trees or the transportation of Khair Trees within and outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir, except for complying with the strict conditions laid down in the 2016 Rules. As long as the conditions therein are satisfied, Khair wood can be transported outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 13. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal. However, such felling and transportation would, as always, be subject to any directions given by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid matter. The appeal is dismissed.