JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Mr.D. Saikia, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Ranjan, Mr. N. Matta and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, N.F.Railway, appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and Mr. B. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 2. The writ petitioner here-in is a subsidiary of M/s Pristine Logistic and Infraprojects Private Limited. The writ petitioner's case, in a nut shell, is that the petitioner company was incorporated as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for the purpose of developing a PFT/ICD (Private Freight Terminal/Inland Container Depot) Railway siding near New Jalpaiguri Railway Station falling under the Katihar Division of the North-East Frontier Railways over a plot of railway land which was taken by the respondent no 3 on a long term lease. After obtaining "in-principle approval" from the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner had carried out the work of development of PFT/ICD by making heavy investments. But after the project had reached its final stage of development, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had refused to issue the commercial notification of the PFT so as to make it functional and instead, have issued the impugned letter dated 28.11.2018 inter-alia alleging that the "in-principle approval" was obtained by the petitioner by making false declaration as regards ownership of the land. According to the respondents, the "in-principle approval" was for setting up an ICD and as per the PFT policy in vogue, no PFT can be set up over railway land. The case of the petitioner is that the project had been developed over the railway land with the approval of the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 and therefore, the aforesaid stand of the railway authorities is arbitrary and illegal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition praying for a Writ of certiorari setting aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2018 and for issuance of consequential writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 to issue the commercial notification. 3. The facts stated in the writ petition are more or less admitted. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition praying for a Writ of certiorari setting aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2018 and for issuance of consequential writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 to issue the commercial notification. 3. The facts stated in the writ petition are more or less admitted. The core controversy in this proceeding centres around the interpretation of the relevant clauses of the agreements executed by and between the parties and also on a proper construction of the various communications exchanged by and between them from time to time. Therefore, for the purpose of appreciating the issues involved in this proceeding, it would be necessary to briefly narrate the factual back ground of this case. 4. The North East Frontier Railway(for short "N.F. Railway") had entered into a long term lease agreement dated 01.09.2009 with the respondent No.3, i.e. Siliguri-Jaipaiguri Development Authority (SJDA) in respect of a plot of Railway land measuring 84.734 acres situated at New Jalpaiguri, upon upfront payment of a sum of Rs.10,21,59,536/- as lease rent which amount was equivalent to 99% of the current market value of the land. As per the lease agreement dated 01.09.2009, the respondent No.3 was entitled to use the land for the purpose of construction of an Inland Container Depot (ICD) (dry Port) and other allied purposes for allotment on sub-lease of facilities. The lease was for an initial period of 35 years which was extendable by another 35 years. After signing the lease agreement, the respondent No.3 (SJDA) had issued a number of advertisements inviting bids from private operators for setting up an ICD but the initial advertisements did not evoke any response. On 09.03.2015, the respondent no.3 had issued another advertisement notice inviting partners for development of an Inland Container Depot (ICD) on the land adjacent to the NJP Railway Station. The holding company of the petitioner viz. Pristine Logistic and Infra-projects Private Limited is holding a Category-I Container Trained Operator's licence from the Indian Railways and was already engaged in running container trains all across the country. As such, two companies, viz. M/s Pristine Logistic and Infra-projects Private Limited and M/s Hindustan Dockyard Private Limited had formed consortium and submitted a proposal dated 27.05.2015 in response to the notice dated 09.03.2015 issued by the respondent no 3. As such, two companies, viz. M/s Pristine Logistic and Infra-projects Private Limited and M/s Hindustan Dockyard Private Limited had formed consortium and submitted a proposal dated 27.05.2015 in response to the notice dated 09.03.2015 issued by the respondent no 3. After consideration of the proposal, a Letter of Award (LoA) dated 22.12.2015 was issued by the respondent No.3 in favour of the consortium bidders. Accordingly, on 15.02.2016, the petitioner company was incorporated as a SPV to give effect to the Letter of Award (LoA) dated 22.12.2015. 5. Pursuant to the LoA dated 22.12.2015, the petitioner company had submitted a feasibility report for establishing a PFT (Private Freight Terminal)-cum- ICD (Inland Container Depot) at New Jalpaigurion 29.03.2016 and vide letter dated 26.04.2016, the respondent No.1 had conveyed its "in principle approval" for setting up a PFT. Thereafter, the petitioner was advised to deposit the required fees. However, on 29.04.2016 the "in-principle approval" was withdrawn by the respondent No.1 on the ground that the lease agreement dated 01.09.2009 entered with the respondent No.3 had been terminated. Subsequently, a six member committee, consisting of representatives from the Railway Ministry, Ministry of Commerce, Government of West Bengal, Tea Board of India and the SJDA, was constituted under the initiative of the Railway Board to review the matter of termination of the lease agreement. On the recommendation of the six member committee, the termination of the lease agreement dated 01.09.2009 was subsequently revoked by the respondent no 1. After the revocation of termination of the lease agreement, the petitioner company had made a representation dated 13.02.2017 before the respondent No.1 to issue a fresh "in-principle approval" for the proposed ICD siding/PFT at New Jalpaiguri Station and vide letter dated 03.03.2017 a fresh "in-principle approval" for setting up the ICD/PFT was also issued by the respondent no.1 in favour of the petitioner. In the letter dated 03.03.2017, it was also mentioned that the feasibility report for developing the PFT has been approved and accordingly, the petitioner company was asked to submit a Detail Project Report (DPR). 6. It is to be noted here-in that at the time when the lease agreement dated 01.09.2009 was executed, there was no PFT policy of the railways in vogue. 6. It is to be noted here-in that at the time when the lease agreement dated 01.09.2009 was executed, there was no PFT policy of the railways in vogue. The PFT policy was introduced for the first time in the year 2010, whereafter, the same had also under gone several modifications and the new PFT policy of 2015, which is currently holding the field, was finally notified on 10.04.2015. Paragraph 11.5 of the PFT policy requires that a DPR be submitted by the applicant and accordingly, the petitioner had prepared and submitted a DPR, which had also received the approval of the respondent No.1 vide letter dated 21.08.2017. Around that time, the engineering scale plan was also approved by the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 vide letter dated 01.12.2017. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner company had entered into a concession agreement with the respondent No.3 on 26.03.2018. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) had also accorded "in-principle approval" for the Rail-linked Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Siliguri vide letter dated 28.03.2018. The respondent no.2 had, thereafter, issued letter dated 25.04.2018 requiring the petitioner to deposit the licence fee and the security deposit in relation to Railway connectivity to the proposed PFT siding at New Jalpaiguri and the licence fee was also deposited by the writ petitioner. On 13.06.2018 the petitioner company had entered into an agreement with the respondent No.2 for occupation of Railway land situated at New Jalpaiguri covering an area of 8595.02 Sq. M. for the purpose of laying down Railway track so as to connect the proposed PFT siding for the period from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2023. 7. Upon completion of all the necessary formalities, the respondent no.2 had issued a track certificate and a PFT completion certificate, both dated 11.07.2018, to the petitioner company after the engine trial was successfully carried out at the proposed Railway siding at New Jalpaiguri. The petitioner had, in the meantime, cleared all dues payable to the Railways including the PFT Application Fees for a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs; PFT Security Deposit of Rs.10 lakhs; Land Licensing Fees of Rs.11,42,644/- and Rs.2,05,676; Land Licensing Security Deposit of Rs.11,42,644 and Department/Inspection charges of Rs.24,94,948/-. In the meantime, the respondent No.1 had approached the Indian Railway Conference Association requesting it for allotment of "Alpha Code" of the PFT, which was required to operate traffic to the siding. In the meantime, the respondent No.1 had approached the Indian Railway Conference Association requesting it for allotment of "Alpha Code" of the PFT, which was required to operate traffic to the siding. In this manner, the petitioner had completed the development of the PFT by observing all departmental formalities and at that stage, only the issuance of the commercial notification was pending. However, instead of issuing the commercial notification, the respondent no 4 had issued the impugned letter dated 28.11.2018 alleging that the petitioner company has made a false declaration as regards the ownership of the land. Hence, this writ petition. 8. The respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 have jointly filed their counter-affidavit opposing the prayer made in the writ petition. Although various grounds including, policy issues, deviation from original lease agreement, loss of public exchequer and availability of alternative remedy of arbitration have been raised in the counter affidavit, yet, the stand of the Railway authorities, in substance, is reflected in the statements made in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit, which are reproduced herein below for ready reference :- "5. That, with regard to the statements made in paragraph 3 of the petition under reply the answering respondent does not admit anything which are not borne out of records. At the time of processing for commercial notification, it was found that as per records, the land mentioned by the petitioner in their application belonged to the Railways which was leased to Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority (SJDA) in the year 2009 and not to the applicant and M/s PHIPL was not in possession of the lease agreement as claimed. The concerned plot of land was actually Railway land which was leased out for setting up of ICD. Para-5 of the lease agreement executed between DRM/Katihar and SJDA clearly mentions that 'title of the land leased out shall always remain with the Railways'. Para-15 confirms that 'the lessee shall not derive any right, title or interest in the said premises, which shall remain the property of the Railway all the times. It is, therefore, evident that the land in question belongs to Railway. As per para-20 of the aforesaid lease agreement, lessee shall not sublet or transfer the privileges without obtaining prior consent in writing from the Railway Administration. The concession agreement between the SJDA and M/s PHIPL was executed in March/2018 without taking any prior concurrence of the Railways. It is, therefore, evident that the land in question belongs to Railway. As per para-20 of the aforesaid lease agreement, lessee shall not sublet or transfer the privileges without obtaining prior consent in writing from the Railway Administration. The concession agreement between the SJDA and M/s PHIPL was executed in March/2018 without taking any prior concurrence of the Railways. Therefore, it can be presumed that the work was simply assigned to a contractor/Developer for completion by SJDA. Private Freight Terminal (PFT) Policy issued by Railway Board in the year 2015, states that PFT cannot be constructed on railway land. The PFT policy guidelines stipulates that the policy aims to stimulate development of privately owned freight terminals not on Railway Land for dealing with railway traffic including parcel traffic and containers, and any freight terminal, private siding or any other type of goods handling facility on railway owned land is excluded from the applicability of this policy. Hence, the proposal submitted by M/s PHIPL for issuance of commercial notification for commissioning of PFT at NJP was not considered under the purview of the aforesaid PFT policy." 9. The respondent No.3 has also filed an affidavit supporting the case of the petitioner company inter-alia taking the stand that the recourse taken by the SJDA was within the ambit of the lease agreement dated 01.09.2009 and that the N. F. Railway authorities were all long not only aware of the developments but from time to time they have also given their approval, based on which, the project has moved forward. It is also the stand of the respondent No.3 that delay in issuing the commercial notification is causing immense financial loss not only to the N.F.Railways but also the SJDA and the business community in general and that the PFT/ICD terminal, if made operational, will promote economic development of the entire region. 10. Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, has invited the attention of this Court to the various communications issued by the respondent No.1 from time to time to show that the stand taken in the affidavit is not only untenable in the eye of law but the same is also contrary to the departmental records maintained by the authorities. In support of the above contention, Mr.Saikia submits that the respondent authorities have granted "in-principle approval" for setting up of a PFT not once but on two separate occasions and DPR for setting up the PFT was also approved by the authorities before the construction work had commenced. The learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner company could not have set up such elaborate infrastructure including laying of Railway tracks providing connectivity to the PFT/ICD without the knowledge and approval of all the railway authorities. Therefore, submits Mr.Saikia, the stand taken by the respondents in the impugned letter dated 28.11.2018 is nothing but an attempt to cause loss and injury to the petitioner company for reasons best known to the railway authorities. 11. Mr.Saikia has further argued that when the agreement dated 01.09.2009 was executed with the SJDA, there was no PFT policy of the Railways and therefore, only ICD was mentioned in the said agreement. Referring to the PFT scheme, Mr.Saikia submits that the PFT policy was introduced by the N.F.Railways for the first time in the year 2010 and as per the said policy, an ICD forms part of the PFT in as much as, while an ICD can handle container based Railway track, a PFT has to provide the additional facilities of dry warehouse, cold storage and liquid storage tank in addition to the facilities provided under an ICD, which are already a part of the PFT facility to be provided by his client at the NJP station. According Mr.Saikia, an ICD is a custom notified area coming under the control of Commissioner of Customs and is a dry port which is capable of handling only the temporary storage of custom bound or custom controlled cargo whereas the PFT has greater facilities. Therefore, submits Mr saikia, the stand of the respondent authorities, as projected in their affidavit, is wholly arbitrary and hence, untenable in the eye of law. 12. By referring to two decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited Vs. Union of India and others, (2012) 11 SCC 1 and Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited Vs. 12. By referring to two decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited Vs. Union of India and others, (2012) 11 SCC 1 and Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2016) 6 SCC 766 Mr.Saikia has argued that by granting the "in-principle approval" and also by approving the DPR followed by acceptance of various fees from the petitioner company, the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 have held out a promise to the petitioner company to permit it to establish and operate a PFT over the land leased out to SJDA. Based on such assurance, the petitioner company has altered its position by making heavy investment in the project. Therefore, submits Mr.Saikia, it would not be open for the respondents to retract from such promise at this distant point of time. 13. Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the N.F.Railway authorities, has submitted in his usual fairness that this is not a case where the petitioner company had suppressed any material information from the N.F. Railway authorities but the learned senior counsel has argued that as per the lease agreement dated 01.09.2009, the respondent No.3 was permitted only to establish an ICD and other allied purposes but not a PFT. By referring to the PFT policy in vogue, Mr. Dasgupta has argued that the policy document does not permit setting up of a PFT over Railway land and to such extent, the prayer for issuance of the commercial notification made by the petitioner company cannot be considered by the departmental authorities. Contending that the concession agreement was not executed after obtaining the approval of his clients, Mr. Das Gupta has argued that such concession agreement cannot over-ride the clauses contained in the lease agreement dated 01.09.2009. 14. The learned senior counsel for the railways has also argued that the doctrine of promissory estoppel would have no application in case of "in-principle approval" and in support of his aforesaid argument Mr.Dasgupta has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kasinka Trading Vs. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 274 . 14. The learned senior counsel for the railways has also argued that the doctrine of promissory estoppel would have no application in case of "in-principle approval" and in support of his aforesaid argument Mr.Dasgupta has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kasinka Trading Vs. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 274 . To sum up his arguments, Mr.Dasgupta has submitted that the Railway authorities would have no objection if an ICD is set up over the railway land but setting up a PFT would not only violate the PFT Policy but it would also result into loss of revenue for the N.F.Railways. 15. Mr. B. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, has argued that the ICD is not a matter for the Railway authorities to decide but it is for the Inter-Ministerial Committee of the Government of India to take a decision on the setting up of an ICD. According to Mr. Deb, the Railway authorities have the power only to approve a PFT, that too, under the policy in vogue and the construction work having been carried out as per the existing guidelines and with the approval of the Railway authorities, refusal to issue the commercial notification on the part of the railway authorities is not all justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. Mr. Deb has also placed reliance on the observations made by the six member committee to contend that the committee had taken note of the fact that the SJDA had selected experienced private partner to develop Railways ICD and that the basic infrastructure including the internal roads, warehouse, terminals etc. have already been developed and only the laying of the rail line was remaining to be done. 17. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the materials available on record. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that two basic issues would arise for consideration in this case which are as follows :- (1) Whether the petitioner company has suppressed material facts while obtaining the "in principle approval"? (2) Whether the construction of the PFT/ICD by the petitioner company is as per approval of the N.F.Railway authorities? 18. (2) Whether the construction of the PFT/ICD by the petitioner company is as per approval of the N.F.Railway authorities? 18. In so far as the first issue is concerned, although Mr.Dasgupta has clarified that the allegation of making a false declaration by the petitioner is not being pressed in this writ petition, yet, having regard to the bearing the said issue is likely to have on the outcome of this petition, it would be necessary for this court to deal with the matter on merits. 19. As noticed above, the controversy involved in this proceeding has its roots in the lease agreement dated 01.09.2009 and therefore, the relevant clauses being clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the agreement dated 01.09.2009 are reproduced herein below for ready reference :- "1. The Lessee shall have the use of the piece of Railway Land described in the schedule hereunder written and delineated on the Plan No.:KIR/LL/02/2009 attached hereto thereon coloured (hereinafter called the said land) for the purpose of INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT (Dry Port)and other allied purposes for allotment of sub-lease of facilities and developed area by Siliguri Jalpai Development Authority to others subject to following rules framed hereunder and such other rules, regulation and bye-laws as may from time to time be made by or on behalf of the Administration or by or behalf of any competent authority in relation to the inland container depot and subject to further condition herein mentioned. It is essential condition of this agreement that the Lessee is given on the express understanding that the said land will be used for Inland Container Depot and other allied purposes, which the Lessee shall construct thereon by involving public or private partners, is mentioned above. 2. The said Inland Container Depot shall be constructed in full accordance with the specification and plan approved and sanctioned by the Principal Chief Engineer, Northeast Frontier Railway, Maligaon or his nominated Representative. 3. 2. The said Inland Container Depot shall be constructed in full accordance with the specification and plan approved and sanctioned by the Principal Chief Engineer, Northeast Frontier Railway, Maligaon or his nominated Representative. 3. The Lessee shall allow the General Manager or other officers of the Northeast Frontier Railway authorised in that behalf free access at all time to the said land and to all structures, works and convenience of the Lessee thereon whether completed or in course of the construction and the Lessee shall whenever so requested by the said General Manager or the abovementioned officers forthwith pull down, rebuild, replace or repair any part of the structures, works or conveyances which the said General Manger or the authorised officers may consider to be improperly situated or of defective design, construction or materials or in want of repairs. All such alteration repairs and the like must not any way infringe the approved drawing and specification." 20. There is no dispute about the fact that the lease agreement dated 01-09-2009 only mentions about setting up an ICD and facility for "Other allied purposes". There is no mention of a PFT in the agreement dated 01.09.2009. But it is also equally true that the PFT Policy of the Railways was not in existence on the date of executing the agreement dated 01.09.2009 and that is probably the reasons why the agreement dated 01.09.2009 does not mention about a PFT. 21. As noted above, the PFT policy of the railways had been introduced for the first time in the year 2010 and the revised PFT Policy was notified on 02.01.2015. The PFT Policy does not define an ICD. However, a PFT has been defined as a terminal notified under the PFT policy to deal with Railway based cargo including the containers. The PFT policy also defines private siding as privately owned terminal created for a single rail end user (manufacturer, consumer etc.). 22. As per the scheme of the PFT Policy, an eligible entity proposing to set up any type of PFT would have to apply to CCOM/FM of the Zone in whose jurisdiction the proposed PFT falls, by enclosing the prescribed document and application fee. For setting up a green field PFT the applicant would have to submit a DPR and engineering drawing both of which have to be approved by the designated authorities. 23. For setting up a green field PFT the applicant would have to submit a DPR and engineering drawing both of which have to be approved by the designated authorities. 23. As per Clause 11.7 of the circular dated 02.01.2015, the completion time for a green field PFT is three years and before commissioning the PFT, the Chief Commercial Manager/Financial Manager of the concerned Railway Zone and the TMC is required to execute an agreement whereafter, a commercial notification opening a PFT as an independent terminal is required to be issued by the Chief Commercial Manager of the concerned Railway. 24. There is no dispute in this case that the work of development of a PFT at the NJP Railway station has been completed and PFT completion certificate has also been issued to the petitioner. At this stage, only the signing of a PFT agreement followed by issuance of the commercial notification remains to be carried out. 25. The feasibility report submitted by the writ petitioner in the month of March, 2016, is available on record. The aforesaid report clearly mentioned that the same was meant for the proposed "Private Freight Terminal cum-Inland Container Depot at New Jalpaiguri (NJP) Station, Katihar Division, Northeast Frontier Railway". Clause 1.5 of the feasibility report also indicates that land with other completed infrastructure for the proposed PFT cum ICD has been awarded by the SJDA i.e the respondent no 3 and that the land is situated adjoining to the NJP station non-interlocked south yard. Therefore, it is clear that at the time of submitting the feasibility report the petitioner had furnished sufficient particulars of the land over which the PFT cum ICD was being developed. 26. I also find from the record that on 26.04.2016, the Dy. Com/Pl. of the North East Frontier Railway had communicated to the petitioner that the Chief Operations Manager has granted "inprinciple approval" of the feasibility report submitted by the petitioner for developing a PFT at NJP and the petitioner was advised to deposit the required fees with the Railways as per the extant policy of Railway Board with intimation to the office. By the letter dated 26.04.2016 the petitioner was also asked to prepare the DPR indicating the phasing of the works and submit the same to his office. By the letter dated 26.04.2016 the petitioner was also asked to prepare the DPR indicating the phasing of the works and submit the same to his office. Although by the letter dated 29.04.2016 the earlier "in-principle approval" was revoked on the ground that the lease agreement had been cancelled with the respondent No.3, yet, on 03.03.2017 the Commercial Manager had once again un-conditionally granted "in-principle approval" of the feasibility report submitted by the petitioner for developing a PFT at NJP. 27. It is also found from the record that before revoking the termination of the lease agreement, a six member committee was constituted by the Railway Board and the said committee, after a threadbare analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, had recommended revocation of the termination and had favoured setting up of the ICD by making the following observations :- "1. This revival will help implementation of the project benefiting in terms of revenue generation for the Railways as this helps to divert majority of cargo from road to rail. 2. Development of the said project will create more employment opportunities for both Railways and Govt. of West Bengal. 3. Value addition to the Tea Industry in terms of domestic and export market. 4. This will improve the cargo movement to and from the North Eastern States. 5. Overall socio economic development of entire North Eastern Region." 28. That apart, a copy of the letter dated 21.08.2017 issued by the Dy. Com/Planning of the N.F.Railways is also available on record which goes to show that the DPR was for developing an ICD-cum- PFT at NJP. Clause 2.5 of the DPR mentions that ICD cum PFT is just by the side of the railway line adjoining the New Jalpaiguri South non-interlocked yard and has a total length of 750 meters towards the south yard NJP. 29. The DPR submitted by the petitioner had been approved by the railway authorities. Since, the DPR lays down the complete details of the project by furnishing all relevant information, it cannot be reasonably presumed that while approving the DPR, the authorities did not verify the identity of the land which was shown to be located by the side of the railway track at NJP station. Since, the DPR lays down the complete details of the project by furnishing all relevant information, it cannot be reasonably presumed that while approving the DPR, the authorities did not verify the identity of the land which was shown to be located by the side of the railway track at NJP station. It would be significant to note herein that no question whatsoever, as regards the owner ship or identity of the land had been raised in the communication sent by the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 approving the DPR. 30. From the bulk of the materials brought on record, It is clear beyond any pale of doubt that the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 were not only aware about the fact that the PFT cum ICD was being set up over railway land leased to the respondent no 3 but they were also conscious of the fact that the 'inprinciple approval" was for developing a PFT. Therefore, the allegation made against the writ petitioner of making a false declaration about the identity of the land is found to be completely untenable in law and therefore, rejected by this court. 31. Moreover, it is seen from the documents available on record that respondent no 1 had granted approval for setting up a PFT at NJP. The policy document of the N.F. Railways does not make any distinction between a PFT and an ICD. The N.F.Railways does not have any scheme or policy for setting up an ICD. Under the circumstances, this court is left with no other option but to conclude that the expression ICD would also include a PFT and the "in-principle approval" granted by the respondent no 1 was for setting up a PFT at the NJP railway station. The first issue is decided accordingly. 32. Coming to the next issue, I find from the materials available on record that on 26.03.2018, the SJDA had entered into a concession agreement with the petitioner company. The concession agreement mentions that the ICD is being developed near NJP station on public private partnership over the railway land taken on long term lease dated 01.09.2009. As per clause 1 of the lease deed dated 01.09.2009, the respondent no 3 had the liberty to induct private partner for setting up of the ICD. The lease agreement dated 01.09.2009 does not create any bar upon the respondent no 3 from developing a PFT. As per clause 1 of the lease deed dated 01.09.2009, the respondent no 3 had the liberty to induct private partner for setting up of the ICD. The lease agreement dated 01.09.2009 does not create any bar upon the respondent no 3 from developing a PFT. Therefore, it cannot be said that a PFT was impermissible under the lease agreement dated 01.09.2009. From a perusal of the concession agreement dated 26.03.2018, I also do not find anything contained there-in which expressly contravenes the terms of the lease agreement dated 01.09.2009. 33. Apart from that , on 13.06.2018 the N.F. Railway had entered into an agreement of licence with the petitioner company for providing connectivity to the proposed PFT siding at NJP for the period from 01.03.2018 to 31.03.2023, whereafter, an amount of Rs.11,42,644/- was also deposited by the petitioner as licence fee. In the said agreement also it is clearly mentioned that the occupation of the land was temporary in nature and meant for providing connectivity to the proposed PFT siding. It is not believable that the N.F.Railway authorities would execute such agreement of licence with the writ petitioner if had any reservation about the development of the PFT over the railway leased land. 34. On 25.07.2018 the Senior DCM/KIR had issued a letter addressed to the PCCM/NLG requesting that PFT agreement be executed with the writ petitioner and commercial notification be issued by indicating that the completion certificate duly signed by the ADEN/NJP is being enclosed with the said letter. Such a categorical recommendation by a responsible railway officer having jurisdiction over the matter would not have been possible had there been any doubt as regards the validity of the approval granted earlier. 35. From the facts alluded to above, it would thus, be evident that In support of its case, the petitioner company has brought on record copy of the "in-principle approval" dated 03.03.2017 , letter of approval of DPR dated 21.08.2017, approval of the engineering scale plan dated 01.02.2017, track certificate dated 11.07.2018 and PFT completion certificate dated 11.07.2018. None of these documents are under challenge. The "in-principle approval" has also not been revoked till today. None of these documents are under challenge. The "in-principle approval" has also not been revoked till today. All these documents unequivocally go to show that the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 were all along aware not only about the fact that a PFT was being developed over a plot of Railway land leased to the SJDA i.e. respondent No.3 vide lease agreement dated 01.09.2009 but also the fact that the writ petitioner was developing a PFT cum ICD in partnership with the respondent no 3. 36. In the above context it would be pertinent to mention herein that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking certain documents pertaining to the aforesaid transaction. In response to the RTI query made by the petitioner, the respondents had furnished certain documents. Significant amongst those is the office note dated 20.06.2019 put up by the PCCM/NF Railway. A perusal of the office note dated 20.06.2019 also goes to show that the N.F.Railway authorities were all along aware of the fact that the petitioner company is setting up a PFT over the Railway land leased out to the SJDA. It is also mentioned there-in that the NFR has already given approval to the petitioner to set up a PFT. The said note also clearly reflects that the petitioner had applied for PFT/ICD and the NFR has approved the facility to be notified as a PFT. The note also mentions that as on date, the valid route of approving an ICD siding is only through PFT. After highlighting the important aspects of the matter, the PCCM has categorically observed that the SJDA and its allied developer i.e. the petitioner be permitted to commission the ICD along with other allied services as per the terms and conditions of the agreement with the SJDA. Accordingly, a suggestion had also been made that the Railway Board be informed about the decision. The office note dated 20.06.2019 further indicates that the General Manager had agreed with the proposal put up by the PCCM/NF Railway. Notwithstanding the same, no action has been taken in the matter till today for issuance of the commercial notification. 37. From the facts and circumstances narrated here-in above, it would be evident that by granting the in-principle approval of the feasibility report and the DPR the respondent nos. Notwithstanding the same, no action has been taken in the matter till today for issuance of the commercial notification. 37. From the facts and circumstances narrated here-in above, it would be evident that by granting the in-principle approval of the feasibility report and the DPR the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 had not only permitted the petitioner to set up PFT but by providing for the railway track connecting the siding as well as by accepting deposit of the license fee etc. they had given an assurance to the writ petitioner to issue the commercial notification of the PFT. The above conduct of the railway authorities, in the opinion of this court, amounts to a promise which they cannot resile from at this point of time. 38. Law governing the doctrine of promissory estoppel had been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd v State of UP, (1979) 2 SCC 409 , wherein it has been held that the doctrine applies to Government or State. Principles of promissory estoppel has been stated as where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create a legal relation or to effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing as well as intending that the representation, assurance or the promise would be acted upon by the other party to whom it has been made has made and has in fact been so acted upon by the other party, the representation, assurance or promise will be binding on the party making it and that party should not be allowed to go back on it if the same would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealing which have taken place between the parties and this would be so irrespective of whether there is any pre-existing relationship between the parties or not. It has been observed that for attracting the doctrine of promissory estoppel all that would be necessary is that the promise should have altered his position by relying on the promise. The aforesaid principle has been re-stated in Kasinka Trading (supra). 39. It has been observed that for attracting the doctrine of promissory estoppel all that would be necessary is that the promise should have altered his position by relying on the promise. The aforesaid principle has been re-stated in Kasinka Trading (supra). 39. In the case of Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited(supra) the Supreme Court, after taking note of the various previous decision of the court on the subject, has held that promissory estoppel would be available against the Government and can be applied when it would be unconscionable for the Government to get away without fulfilling its promise. It has also been held that the Government cannot be allowed to resile from its promise unless such action can be justified on the question of overwhelming public interest. 40. In the present case, the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 have taken a stand that setting up the PFT would lead to loss of revenue for the N.F. Railway and therefore, would be against public interest. However, nothing has been brought on record to substantiate such a plea. On the contrary, there are sufficient material on record to show that the PFT would benefit the entire region besides boosting revenue for the N.F.Railways. The minutes of meeting dated 25.11.2016 of the six member committee set up by the Railway Board also clearly support such a conclusion. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that there is no justifiable ground cited by the N.F. Railway authorities for resiling from the promise it had made to the writ petitioner. 41. The decision rendered in the case of Kasinka Trading (supra) relied upon by Mr. Dasgupta is not an authority for the proposition that "in-principle approval" would not constitute a promise. Moreover, as has been held above, it is by their consistent conduct that the respondent no 1, 2 and 4 have held out a promise to the petitioner. Therefore, the decision relied upon by Mr.Dasgupta would not be of any assistance to him in the facts and circumstances of this case. 42. For the reasons stated here-in-before, I am of the view that the decision of the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 in not issuing the commercial notification of the PFT is absolutely arbitrary, illegal and without any rational basis. Likewise, the letter dated 28.11.2018 is illegal and hence, liable to be set aside. 43. 42. For the reasons stated here-in-before, I am of the view that the decision of the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 in not issuing the commercial notification of the PFT is absolutely arbitrary, illegal and without any rational basis. Likewise, the letter dated 28.11.2018 is illegal and hence, liable to be set aside. 43. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. 44. The impugned letter dated 28.11.2018 stands set aside. 45. The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 are hereby directed to initiate necessary steps for execution of the PFT agreement with the petitioner company as per the provisions of Clause 11.8 of the PFT Policy and thereafter, issue commercial notification of the PFT. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out and completed as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Parties to bear their own cost.