JUDGEMENT : 1. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. I have also heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Advocate General, State of Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Mr. S. Yrang, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3. Mr. T. Tagum, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the private respondent nos. 4 to 7. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has inter-alia assailed the Memorandum dated 25/09/2024 (signed on 28/10/2024) issued by the respondent no. 3 as well as the communication dated 08/10/2024 issued by the respondent no.2 whereby, it was intimated that the two districts, viz. Lohit and Namsai were being withdrawn from the allotment made to the petitioner under Zone-I as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 19/01/2022 entered by and between the parties for the purpose of Oil Palm Development in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 3. The facts and circumstances of the case, giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition, are briefly stated herein below :- (a) The Director of Agriculture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh i.e. the respondent no. 2 herein had issued a national request for Expression of Interest (EoI) dated 07/12/2021 for selection of Oil Palm Developer and Processor Company for Oil Palm Development in the State of Arunachal Pradesh (For plantation zone:-I comprising of Lohit, Namsai, Changlang and Tirap District). Clause 5 of the EoI lays down the scope of the work which is reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “5. Terms of reference (ToR) Scope of work: A) The State Government through the Department of Agriculture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh intends to promote cultivation by selecting and mandating 01 (one) competent Oil Palm processor & developer company for area expansion and setting ukp of processing facilities of Oil Palm in potential areas earmarked as Zone: I within the district of Lohit, Namsai, Changlang and Tirap District. B) Factory/ Plantation zone: I vide Notification No. Agri/TMOP-Oil Palm-02/2013-14, Dtd: 11 th Aug. 2014 comprises of all oil palm potential areas under the territorial jurisdiction of Lohit (undivided Lohit district also included present Namsai District), Namsai, Changlang and Tirap district of Arunachal Pradesh for the purpose of Oil Palm development. B) Factory/ Plantation zone: I vide Notification No. Agri/TMOP-Oil Palm-02/2013-14, Dtd: 11 th Aug. 2014 comprises of all oil palm potential areas under the territorial jurisdiction of Lohit (undivided Lohit district also included present Namsai District), Namsai, Changlang and Tirap district of Arunachal Pradesh for the purpose of Oil Palm development. C) The intended/ interested Oil Palm developer and processor company interest to take up Oil palm development under Zone: I must agree to take up development of Oil Palm in the above earmarked areas and set up of Oil Palm Mill. D) Interested companies are broadly expected to work in tandem as per provisions given in the guidelines of NFSN-OS*OP/ NMEO-OP of Govt. of India and instructions of State Government / District level/ Block level Offices of Department of Agriculture. Thus, following Terms of Reference (ToR)/ scope of work shall be considered for engagement and the agreement to be executed through a Memorandum of understanding (MoU). a) The selected company shall execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh in line with the provisions of “the Arunachal Pradesh Oil Palm (Production and Processing) Regulation , 2014” for Oil Palm development in Zone: I. b) The selected company shall abide by “the Arunachal Pradesh Oil Palm (Production and Processing) Regulation , 2014, guidelines and notifications as issued by the Govt. of India and also Government of Arunachal Pradesh in respect of Oil Palm promotion and related matters from time to time. c) The selected Oil Palm developer and processor company within 30 days from execution of MoU, shall without fail initiate establishment of a centrally located company’s zone office and also deploy extension support for area expansion programmes, nursery development, distribution of planting materials and manpower for FFB collection centres for purchase of FFBs produced on buyback mode within the allotted zone. d) The selected company besides taking up new area expansion shall also adopt existing Oil palm plantation and proceed purchase of FFBs produced in the adopted plantation within the allotted zone on buyback mode. d) The selected company besides taking up new area expansion shall also adopt existing Oil palm plantation and proceed purchase of FFBs produced in the adopted plantation within the allotted zone on buyback mode. e) The selected company shall abide by and comply with the price of Oil Palm Fresh Fruit Bunches (FFBs) fixed by the “Oil Palm Price Fixation Committee” constituted in the state for fixing the price of Oil Palm Fresh Fruit Bunches (FFBs) and also follow directives on price fixation/ assurance on FFBs for farmers on buyback mode as an when notified by the Govt. of India. f) If authorized by the farmers, the selected company may assist the farmer in availing loan from the commercial banks/ Co-operative Banks. g) The selected company shall if so, authorised by the farmers ensure recovery of loans by way of deductions from bills payable to farmers from their sale of Oil Palm FFBs, to it and affect such amount as duly recovered for onward transmission/ remittance to the financial institutions on behalf of the concerned farmers. h) The Oil Palm FFBs shall be purchased from the farmers by the Oil Palm developer and processor company at the collection centres set up within the factory zone at the rate fixed under Clause 14 of the Arunachal Pradesh Oil palm (Production & Processing) Regulation, 2014. i) The selected company shall set up collection centre for collecting of Oil Palm FFBs as to be decided by the District Level Oil palm project Management Committee constituted under the Arunachal Pradesh Oil palm (Production & Processing) Regulation, 2014 to facilitate timely supply and collection of Oil Palm Fresh Fruit Bunches. j) The selected company shall have to abide by all provisions of the Arunachal Pradesh Oil palm (Production & Processing) Regulation, 2014. k) The company shall explore land for establishment of nursery, Crude Palm Oil Mill (CPO)/ factory, office etc on lease from the locals within 3 months of execution of MoU. The State Government through the concerned Deputy Commissioners shall facilitate the land lease. l) The selected company shall continue their operations of the Oil Palm Development in the area allotted to them and shall strive to take up a minimum of 8,000 hectares or more in the next 05 (five) years from the date of MoU. m) The selected company shall always extend full cooperation and maintain a cordial relationship with the farmers. l) The selected company shall continue their operations of the Oil Palm Development in the area allotted to them and shall strive to take up a minimum of 8,000 hectares or more in the next 05 (five) years from the date of MoU. m) The selected company shall always extend full cooperation and maintain a cordial relationship with the farmers. n) The selected company shall not withdraw from Memorandum of Understanding for any reason whatsoever. o) The selected company shall keep suitable provision for employment of local domiciles in the work force of the company in Arunachal Pradesh. p) The State Department of Agriculture shall make available all permissible State and Central subsidies as allowed in other State for Oil Palm development to the selected company. q) The selected company shall establish and operate Oil Palm Mill of appropriate capacity for extraction of crude palm oil (CPO) from FFBs in the allotted factory zone within 03 (three) years from the date of MoU. r) The selected company shall be fully responsible for setting up of Palm Oil Mills or processing plants with all infrastructure facilities and shall obtain required clearance from Industries Department, Pollution Control Board, etc including import of sprouts, if required. s) A security Deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) in the form of a Bank Guarantee or a fixed deposit in favour of Director Agriculture, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh shall be furnished to the Department of Agriculture by the selected company. In the eventuality of the selected company failing to set up the Oil Palm Mill in the allotted factory Zone within the stipulated time, the said amount shall be forfeited by the Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh from the selected company. t) The selected company shall make good of all the loss incurred by the Oil Palm farmers in case of its failure to buy back the Oil palm Fresh Fruit Bunches (FFBs) produced by the farmers as per Clause 13 of the Arunachal Pradesh Oil palm ( Production & Processing) Regulation, 2014.” (b) Earnest money deposit for the work was Rs. 10 lakhs. In terms of the aforesaid EoI, the petitioner had submitted its bid for Zone-I and eventually emerged as the successful bidder. Consequently, MoU dated 19/01/2022 was entered by and between the State of Arunachal Pradesh represented by the respondent no. 10 lakhs. In terms of the aforesaid EoI, the petitioner had submitted its bid for Zone-I and eventually emerged as the successful bidder. Consequently, MoU dated 19/01/2022 was entered by and between the State of Arunachal Pradesh represented by the respondent no. 1 and the petitioner no.1 herein, whereafter, the work, as envisaged by the EoI for Zone-I was awarded to the writ petitioner company for as many as four districts i.e. Lohit, Namsai, Changlang and Tirap. However, by the impugned communication dated 25/09/2024, two out of the four districts coming under Zone-I, viz. Lohit and Namsai, had been withdrawn from the writ petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. It appears that besides the 4 (four) districts of Namsai, Lohit, Changlang and Tirap coming within the ambit of MoU dated 19/01/2022 entered by and between the parties pertaining to the Zone-I, similar agreements/MoUs had been entered into by and between the same parties on 13/08/2014 for Zone-III comprising of East Siang district and on 26/03/2016 for Zone-IV pertaining to Lower Siang, Kamley, Papumpare and East Siang districts. 5. The case of the writ petitioner is that while the petitioner company was executing the work pertaining to Zone-I, on 11/04/2023, a memorandum was served upon the company by the respondent no.2 intimating it about the fact that the performance of the petitioner was graded as “poor and unsatisfactory” and, therefore, the petitioner was asked to explain as to why the MoUs should not be revisited by the State Government in the grater interest of Oil Palm Farmers’ of the State and also to ensure success of Oil Palm Development Program in the State. The petitioner was granted time till 17/04/2023 to submit its explanation. Upon receipt of the memorandum dated 11/04/2023, the petitioner submitted its explanation dated 17/04/2023 addressed to the respondent no.2 virtually denying that there was any deliberate lapses on its part in execution of the work. It appears that on 17/05/2023, a meeting was also held between the officials of the Agriculture Department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the representatives of the petitioner company, whereafter, Minutes of Meeting (MoM) were also drawn up wherein, certain measures were suggested for proper execution of the work. It appears that on 17/05/2023, a meeting was also held between the officials of the Agriculture Department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the representatives of the petitioner company, whereafter, Minutes of Meeting (MoM) were also drawn up wherein, certain measures were suggested for proper execution of the work. In the MoM dated 17/05/2023, it has also been recorded that the next review meeting shall be conducted within a fortnight i.e. in the month of June, 2023, so as to discuss the status of action taken by the Company to improve the mandated Oil Palm Development activities under the allotted Oil Palm Factory Zone. 6. It further appears that on 13/03/2024, another memorandum was issued to the petitioner after review of the Oil Palm Development activities in the State, wherein and whereby, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why, performance of the company should not be graded as “Poor and Unsatisfactory” and the MoU should not be revisited by the State Government. Thereafter, another meeting of the parties to the MoU was held on 20/08/2024 reviewing the progress of the work. Eventually, the impugned Memorandum dated 25/09/2024, which was evidently signed on 28/10/2024, was issued to the petitioner company conveying the decision of the Government to withdraw two districts, viz. Lohit and Namsai from Zone-I activities of Palm Oil Development earlier allocated to the petitioner company. The reason for the decision, as apparent from the Memorandum dated 25/09/2024, is reproduced herein below for ready reference :- ““It is evident that, the sheer size and geographical spread of the allocated Districts (total 09 in Nos out of 10 identified Oil Palm potential districts) has posed significant logistical and operational hurdles for Patanjali Foods Ltd considering that a large area of operation for oil palm development, spanning multiple Districts in the State was allocated which was resulted in your company struggling to bring the entire allocated land under oil palm cultivation within its desired timelines. Therefore, in view of the foregoing facts evidencing continuous under performance as against the required obligations under Clauses 1 to 6 & 12, 15 and 22 of the MoU dated 19 th January, 2022 and considering the larger benefit of the farming community of the State, the Govt. Therefore, in view of the foregoing facts evidencing continuous under performance as against the required obligations under Clauses 1 to 6 & 12, 15 and 22 of the MoU dated 19 th January, 2022 and considering the larger benefit of the farming community of the State, the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh in exercise of the power under Section 12 and 23 of “the Arunachal Pradesh Oil Palm (Production and Processing) Regulation 2014”, has decided to withdraw two districts viz. Lohit and Namsai District from your existing allotment under Zone -1, with immediate effect. The withdrawal of the two districts should not be construed as an exercise to belittle the efforts of the Company or an attempt to penalize but as a last resort aimed at the broader objective to rationalize the current arrangement to achieve the oil Palm area expansion targets under NMEO-OP scheme and benefit the farmers. “ 7. On 05/11/2024, the petitioner company had submitted its reply to the communication dated 25/09/2024, denying the allegations levelled against it by the departmental authorities. Notwithstanding the same, the decision taken on 25/09/2024 was reiterated in the subsequent communication dated 08/10/2024. 8. The State respondents have filed counter affidavit rebutting the averments made in the writ petition and have further contended that due to the poor performance of the petitioner company, the State has not only failed to meet the target set by the MoU for Oil Palm production activities but the target set under the National Mission also could not be achieved. It is also the contention of the State that since there is an arbitration agreement contained in the MoU dated 19/01/2022, this writ petition be not entertained by this Court on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 9. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has assailed the memorandum dated 25/09/2024 as well as the subsequent communication dated 08/10/2024, primarily on the following grounds :- (a) That no prior notice was served upon the petitioner before withdrawal of the two districts and /or purported termination of the MoU. (b) Since the MoU is valid till the month of January, 2027, even in case of poor performance, there was still sufficient time for the writ petitioner to improve on its performance and meet the targets which, opportunity was denied to it for no valid reason. (b) Since the MoU is valid till the month of January, 2027, even in case of poor performance, there was still sufficient time for the writ petitioner to improve on its performance and meet the targets which, opportunity was denied to it for no valid reason. (c) The action initiated by the authorities against the writ petitioner company is wholly arbitrary and hence, liable to be interfered with by this Court, and (d) The impugned decision to withdraw the two districts i.e. Lohit and Namsai is against public interest and/or interest of the local farmers. 10. By referring to the materials available on record, more particularly, the statements annexed to the affidavit filed by the official respondents indicating the performance /achievement of the petitioner company, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the own showing of the respondents, the achievement of the petitioner company for Tirap district is 2.29%; for Changlang district is 3.63%; for Namsai district is 8.56% and for Lohit District, it is 76.77%. He, therefore, submits that in view of the performance of the writ petitioner company in Lohit District, which is more than satisfactory, there was no justification for the authorities to withdraw Lohit district from the petitioner company on the ground of under-performance when the achievement of the petitioner for the said district is admittedly 76.77% and there is nearly two years’ time available under the MoU for the petitioner to meet the target of 100% achievement. Mr. Choudhury, therefore, submits that the impugned decision of the authorities is wholly arbitrary, illegal and has been vitiated by complete non-application of mind. 11. Responding to the plea of alternative remedy raised by the State, by referring to the law laid down in the case of Sreelekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1991) 1 SCC 212 , Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that when there is arbitrariness in State action, it will be open for the Writ Court to interfere even if alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party. By referring to the decision of the Supreme court rendered in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Tantia Construction Private Limited reported in (2011) 5 SCC 697 as well as the law laid in the case of M.P. Power Management Company Ltd., Jabalpur Vs. By referring to the decision of the Supreme court rendered in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Tantia Construction Private Limited reported in (2011) 5 SCC 697 as well as the law laid in the case of M.P. Power Management Company Ltd., Jabalpur Vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited and others reported in (2023) 2 SCC 703 , Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the Writ Court would not be powerless to strike down arbitrary action of the State merely on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 12. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon and refereed to a recent decision of this Court rendered in the case of M/s. Shivasais Oil Palm Private Limited and another Vs. The State of Assam and another [WP(C)830/2022 &WP(C) 2746/2022] {JUDGEMENT DATED 29/07/2024} whereby, a coordinate Bench of this Court had deprecated such arbitrary action on the part of the State in seeking to replace the successful bidder in Palm Oil Development by engaging a 3 rd party contractor, in a similar fashion, without there being any proper justification for doing so to contend that the impugned action initiated by the respondent no. 2 is also an attempt to handover the two districts of Zone-I to a 3 rd party bidder for purposes other than Bona fide. 13. By referring to the materials on record, Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Advocate General, State of Arunachal Pradesh, on the other hand has argued that the petitioner company was entrusted with the work by the State Government on a bona fide belief that it would meet the target as per the National Mission Plan of Oil Palm production but when it was detected that the petitioner company is falling short of the target, the departmental authorities were left with no option but to withdraw the two districts so as to rationalize the working condition of the petitioner with a view to meet the State as well as the national targets. 14. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned AG, AP has further argued that the MoU, as a whole, has not been terminated but only two of the districts have been withdrawn for the reasons mentioned in the memorandum dated 25/09/2024, thus, altering the scope and ambit of the MoU. 14. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned AG, AP has further argued that the MoU, as a whole, has not been terminated but only two of the districts have been withdrawn for the reasons mentioned in the memorandum dated 25/09/2024, thus, altering the scope and ambit of the MoU. If the petitioner is aggrieved with such decision in any manner, the remedy would lie in referring the matter to arbitration. 15. Mr. T. Tagum, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 7, who got themselves impleaded in the writ petition on the strength of the order dated 17/01/2025 passed in IA(C) No. 248/2024, are the members of the farmers’ community who are the beneficiaries of the Oil Palm Development work being executed by the petitioner company under Zone-I. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 7 submits that his clients are happy with the work executed by the petitioner company in Zone-I and if the two districts are withdrawn from the petitioner company on the strength of the impugned memorandum dated 25/09/2024 than, the same could prejudicially affect the interest of the farmers of the locality. 16. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have also gone through the materials available on record including the departmental records produced by the learned State counsel. 17. At the very outset, it would be pertinent to note herein that the MoU dated 19/01/2022 entered into by and between the contesting parties is still subsisting and it is not the case of either party that the MoU has been terminated. From a perusal of the statement of reason for the decision, as reflected in the impugned Memorandum dated 25/09/2024, it is apparent that the decision to withdraw the two districts of Lohit and Namsai, though taken unilaterally by the respondent authorities, was not aimed at penalizing the petitioner Company or to “belittle” the efforts of the company in Oil Palm Development in the State but was an attempt to rationalize the current arrangement of Oil Palm Development so as to achieve the target. If that be so, it is evident that all that the Memorandum dated 25/09/2024 intended to achieve, was to alter the scope of the work originally awarded/allocated to the petitioner Company by withdrawing the two districts on the ground that such a recourse will help the Company to achieve its target. 18. If that be so, it is evident that all that the Memorandum dated 25/09/2024 intended to achieve, was to alter the scope of the work originally awarded/allocated to the petitioner Company by withdrawing the two districts on the ground that such a recourse will help the Company to achieve its target. 18. Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act , 1872 lays down the provision for novation, rescission and alteration of contract. According to section 62, alteration of a contract would be permissible if agreed to by both the parties to the contract. If the idea behind the Memorandum dated 25/09/2024 was to rationalize the activities undertaken by the petitioner company for the benefit of both the parties, then it is not understood as to why, such a decision could not have been preceded by a mutual understanding / agreement between both the parties. It is also not understood as to how one of the parties to the contract can unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of the contract without the consent of other side and justify such an action on the ground that the same is aimed at rationalizing the execution of the work. Such an action on the part of the State, in the opinion of this Court, would not only militate against the fundamental principles of law as embodied under the Indian Contract Act but would also amount to arbitrary and high-handed action on the part of the departmental authority and, therefore, would be liable to be struck down by the Court. 19. After the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Srelekha Vidyarthi (supra) , law is well settled that every action of the State must be informed by reason and any act un-informed by reason, is arbitrary. There is no answer from the State as to why, despite having achieved more than76.77% of target in Lohit district, the need to withdraw the said district from the petitioner company was left on the ground of under-performance. In view of the materials placed on record by the respondents themselves and in the absence of any proper response to the query of the Court on such count, this Court is left with no other option but to conclude that the impugned decision of the respondent is vitiated by complete arbitrariness and non-application of mind. 20. In view of the materials placed on record by the respondents themselves and in the absence of any proper response to the query of the Court on such count, this Court is left with no other option but to conclude that the impugned decision of the respondent is vitiated by complete arbitrariness and non-application of mind. 20. From a careful examination of the records, it is apparent that the decision reflected in the Memorandum dated 25/09/2024, as subsequently communicated by the communication dated 08/10/2024, lies in the realm of administrative decision making power of the State. Therefore, if the decision making process is found to be arbitrary and the decision not informed by any reason, merely because an alternative remedy is available to the writ petitioners, the same would not prevent the Writ Court from exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction to interfere with such arbitrary decision so as to render complete justice. 21. It is no doubt correct that the dispute arising by and between the parties can be resolved by referring the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Clause-23 of the MoU dated 19/01/2022, which contains the arbitration agreement. However, law is equally well settled that mere existence of alternative remedy will not be a ground for the Writ Court to refuse to exercise writ jurisdiction when the facts and circumstances of the case so justifies. In this regard, the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Tantia Construction (P) Ltd reported in (2011) 5 SCC 697 , in para 33, would be relevant and, therefore, is being reproduced herein below :- “33. Apart from the above, even on the question of maintainability of the writ petition on account of the arbitration clause included in the agreement between the parties, it is now well established that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court and that without exhausting such alternative remedy, a writ petition would not be maintainable. The various decisions cited by Mr. Chakraborty would clearly indicate that the constitutional powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to the authorities. The various decisions cited by Mr. Chakraborty would clearly indicate that the constitutional powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to the authorities. Injustice, whenever and wherever it takes place, has to be struck down as an anathema to the rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution.” 22. What would also be significant to note herein, in the context of the facts alluded to, herein above, is that the MoU dated 19/01/2022 apparently does not contain any specific termination clause. Rather, what it provides is that, as per clause-21, in the event of contravention of any clause of the MoU by the second party (Petitioner company) including failure to set up Oil Palm Mill in the allocated factory zone within the stipulated time, the security deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs) in the form of Bank Guarantee or Fixed Deposit, will be liable to be forfeited. Clause-16 of the MoU, on the other hand, stipulates that the second party (petitioner company) shall not withdraw from the MoU for any reason whatsoever. If that be so, can be State unilaterally withdraw the two districts from the scope of the work? The answer to the said question, in the considered opinion of the Court, has to be in the negative. 23. From a plain reading of the terms and conditions of the MoU, it is doubtful as to whether, the MoU is at all determinable in nature and to that extent, whether the respondents can terminate the MoU by a simple notice even if desired. Be that as it may, law is well settled that even if the MoU/contract is sought to be terminated by one of the parties to the agreement, the same can only be done after compliance with the due process of law including observance of the principles of natural justice. Since it is the admitted case of the State that the MoU dated 19/01/2022 has not been terminated, it would not be necessary for this Court to go into the aforesaid aspect of the matter including the question as to whether the MoU is determinable in nature, in any further details, at this stage. 24. Since it is the admitted case of the State that the MoU dated 19/01/2022 has not been terminated, it would not be necessary for this Court to go into the aforesaid aspect of the matter including the question as to whether the MoU is determinable in nature, in any further details, at this stage. 24. From the impugned Memorandum dated 25/09/2024, it further appears that the respondents have invoked clauses 12 & 23 of the “ Arunachal Pradesh Oil Palm (Production and Processing) Regulation s, 2014” so as to withdraw the two districts from the petitioner company. It appears that the Regulations of 2014 are executive instructions which do not have force of a statute. However, what is also to be noted herein is that clause 12 of the Regulations of 2014 merely permits the Government to make declaration of Factory Zone. As per clause 23, power of the Government to give direction to the State Oil Palm Officers or any other Officer to make enquiry or to initiate appropriate proceeding in respect of any matter specified in the order, has been laid down. On a careful reading of the clauses 12 & 23 of the Regulations of 2014, I do not find anything contained therein, which would permit the State Government to unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of a concluded contract in the form of MoU dated 19/01/2022. Therefore, the reliance placed by the respondents on clauses 12 & 23 of the Regulations of 2014 appears to be completely misplaced. 25. For the reasons stated herein above, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. 26. The Memorandum dated 25/09/2024 and the subsequent communication dated 08/10/2024 are hereby set aside. However, it is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the Departmental authorities to initiate any action against the petitioner Company, in accordance with law, in the event it is found that the Company has acted in breach of the express terms and conditions of the MoU. Parties to bear their own cost.