JOYJIT DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner an educated unemployed local youth, wants to start a saw and veneer mill at Baladmari in Goalpara District and accordingly he approached the Forest Department. 'He purchased more than 2 bighas of land at Rs. 50,000/-, developed the same, obtained necessary licence from the Chief Inspector of Factories and also no objection certificate from the Gaon Panchayat. By letter dated 30-11-84 the Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara Division informed the petitioner that the Chief Conservator of Forest was pleased to allow him to establish the said saw mill on the land. This licence was however cancelled by the Chief Conservator of Forest on 22nd July, 1985. But on the prayer of the petitioner, this cancellation order was vacated on July 25, 1985. The petitioner also obtained necessary sanction of power and placed order for machineries worth Rs. 5 lakhs. According to the petitioner his Factory is in a position to commence production, but surprisingly enough by letter dated 1-2-1986 respondents informed the petitioners that the permission for establishment of the mill was withdrawn. Thereafter, petitioner approached the respondents number of times to get the order of withdrawal of permission cancelled. But though verbal assurance was given, ultimately the Government in the Forest Department by Letter No. FRS.307/87/46 dated 11-7-88 informed the Chief Conservator of Forest the inability of the Government to grant licence in favour of the petitioner. Hence the present petition.

(2.) After hearing Mr. S.K. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.Prasad, learned senior Govt. Advocate, we propose to dispose of the petition by passing this final order at the admission stage.

(3.) Mr. Prasad was granted time by this Court to obtain necessary instructions and he has submitted that the licence was cancelled in view of the Government policy communicated under memo No. FRS.53/ 85/ 3 dated 2-5-85. Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that this policy of the Government was formulated in the year 1985 whereas permission to establish the mill by the petitioner was granted on 30th November, 1984 and as such the said policy is not applicable. Mr. Sen has further urged that after the permission to establish the saw mill was granted, the petitioner invested more than Rs. 5 lakhs and as such the respondents are bound to grant the licence to the petitioner on the principle of doctrine of promissory estoppel. In support Mr. Sen has drawn our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806.