Provisional clearance for forest-based units does not create an enforceable right when public interest and raw material limits control approval decisions.

Provisional clearance for forest-based units did not create an enforceable right against the State because IPARA acted only as a recommending body and final approval remained subject to government policy, raw material availability, and environmental considerations. Promissory estoppel could not operate absolutely where public interest and sustainable development were implicated, and its application depended on the actual reliance and altered position of each unit. The matter required reconsideration on a fresh factual record, including a credible expert assessment of khair wood availability, before further approvals could be granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government of Himachal Pradesh could refuse to approve katha units notwithstanding prior clearance by IPARA, and whether such clearance created an enforceable right in favour of the applicants. (ii) Whether the matter required remand for a fresh examination of promissory estoppel, altered position, public interest, and the proper assessment of the availability of khair wood.

Issue (i): Whether the Government of Himachal Pradesh could refuse to approve katha units notwithstanding prior clearance by IPARA, and whether such clearance created an enforceable right in favour of the applicants.

Analysis: IPARA was held to be only a nodal and recommending body, not a statutory authority empowered to grant final approval. Its clearances were administrative and provisional, subject to government approval. The State, acting in executive capacity, could frame policy and decide not to approve additional forest-based industries in view of raw material availability, environmental concerns, and relevant forest policy considerations. Approval by IPARA did not create an absolute right to establish the units.

Conclusion: The State's power to refuse final approval was upheld, and the applicants acquired no vested right merely from IPARA's provisional clearance.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required remand for a fresh examination of promissory estoppel, altered position, public interest, and the proper assessment of the availability of khair wood.

Analysis: The Court held that promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine that must yield where public interest so requires, and its application depends on what each unit had actually done in reliance on the provisional approval. The High Court had not examined each unit's position separately, nor had it been supported by a proper and credible estimate of khair wood availability. In forest-based industries, sustainable development, inter-generational equity, and environmental protection required a realistic assessment of present and future raw material availability before further approvals were granted.

Conclusion: Remand was necessary for fresh adjudication on the factual questions and for a proper expert-based assessment of khair wood availability.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the earlier judgment was set aside, and the writ petitions were directed to be reconsidered on a fresh factual and legal basis with interim status quo and a bar on further approvals pending final determination.

Ratio Decidendi: In forest-based industry matters, provisional administrative clearance does not confer an enforceable right against the State, and equitable doctrines such as promissory estoppel must be balanced against public interest, environmental protection, and a proper assessment of resource availability.

---