1995 (9) TMI 375 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Governor's decision on katha manufacturing units.
2. Validity of IPARA's provisional approvals.
3. Public interest and environmental concerns.
4. Doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Governor's Decision:
The Governor of Himachal Pradesh, during President's rule, approved only three out of six units recommended by IPARA, citing the availability of raw material. The Governor's decision was challenged, leading to several writ petitions. The Supreme Court noted that the Governor's decision was made considering public interest and the availability of raw material, and the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the Governor's orders.

2. Validity of IPARA's Provisional Approvals:
IPARA, established by a Notification dated May 13, 1974, was responsible for processing applications for new industries and recommending projects for government approval. The provisional approvals granted by IPARA did not confer any rights upon the units as they were subject to final approval by the government. The Supreme Court emphasized that the government has the power to approve or disapprove any provisional approval granted by IPARA.

3. Public Interest and Environmental Concerns:
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of sustainable development and the need to balance industrial growth with environmental preservation. The court noted that the manufacture of katha requires cutting khair trees, which has significant environmental implications. The court emphasized the necessity of a proper assessment of the availability of khair wood and the need for a balanced exploitation of forest resources.

4. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The doctrine of promissory estoppel was discussed in the context of whether the government could be held to the provisional approvals granted by IPARA. The court noted that the doctrine is an equitable one and must yield when public interest demands. The court directed the High Court to ascertain what steps the units had taken based on the provisional approvals and to balance public interest with the interests of the units.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter for fresh disposal. It directed the Himachal Pradesh government to conduct a survey to assess the availability of khair wood and to ensure that no new katha manufacturing units are approved pending a final decision on raw material availability. The status quo was ordered to be maintained until the High Court's final decision.