ORDER 1. This petition was first filed by Vidyaranya nagar Petty Shopkeepers' Association. On the office objection raised, the petition was confined to the second petitioner Smt. Chinnamma as ordered by this Court. 2. Petitioner claims to have been a lessee of one of the petty shops leased to her by the first respondent Corporation of the City of Bangalore. It is alleged that she has been trading in the shop for nearly two decades; that some of the petty shopkeepers belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. On several representations made by their Association, the Corporation of the City of Bangalore assured it to assist the members of the association to construct the kiosks. Similarly, even prior to the assurance of the Corporation. the Minister for Urban Development, at the relevant time, had assured that the Corporation itself would construct the shops and lease it to the petitioners. That the lease of land was given to the petitioner and from time to time was extended is not in dispute. Annexure-J to the petition is a resolution of the administrator who was then-in charge of the Corporation by which the lease was renewed for a further period of five years from 1-1-1983 subject to the approval of the Government. But as evidenced by Annexure-RI to the statement of objections filed by the Corporation, that lease was approved by the Government for a period of one year only i.e.. till the end of June. 1984. After that period. petitioner's attempt to continue in the leased premises did not succeed. 3. One Standing Committee of the Corporation favoured construction of shops and leasing the same to the petitioner and the like of her and another Standing Committee i.e., the Tax Committee of the Corporation favoured widening of the road and putting an end to the leases. In view of divergent views of the Standing Committees, the matter was once again resolved in a joint meeting of the two Committees. And there it was decided, as evidence by Annexure-R4 to the statement of objections that the road must be widened and shops must be demolished. That resolution was passed on 20-5-1985. It was resolved that the road should be widened and the shops must be demolished. That resolution has been given effect to. Petitioner and other shop-keepers are no longer in possession of any premises belonging to the Corporation. 4. That resolution was passed on 20-5-1985. It was resolved that the road should be widened and the shops must be demolished. That resolution has been given effect to. Petitioner and other shop-keepers are no longer in possession of any premises belonging to the Corporation. 4. Aggrieved by the series of events, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent Corporation and the second respondent State of Karnataka to build shops and lease the same to the petitioner. 5. In this Court it is contended that the right to livelihood has been denied -and therefore that is in violation of Art. 21. Reliance in that behalf was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis and Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, AIR 1986 SC 180 . Undoubtedly, in that decision the Supreme Court ruled deprivation of right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law could be challenged, as violation of Art. 21. But here the Corporation or the State Government has not in any way interfered with the right to livelihood in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Petitioner and the like of her were no more than lessees of the Corporation. The lease having come to an end in accordance with law, they cannot now complain that there is deprivation of livelihood. Because the lease has been terminated, either they are entitled to a fresh lease if the Corporation is willing to lease the land to them or they are entitled to carry on their business activity somewhere else than the area from which they have been evicted. That cannot be said to be deprivation of their right to livelihood. A contractual obligation has ceased to exist and that cannot be equated with violation of any other fundamental right much less the one guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution. 6. Similarly, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1986 SC 872 . I think that case has been cited without reference to the facts of the case and the questions raised before the Supreme Court. 6. Similarly, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1986 SC 872 . I think that case has been cited without reference to the facts of the case and the questions raised before the Supreme Court. In my view, nothing said by the Supreme Court in that case has any relevance or application to the facts of the present case with which this Court is concerned. 7. Lastly, it was urged that the Corporation is prevented on the principle of promissory estoppel from denying the petitioners the right to carry on their trade in petty shop keeping in the area in question as the same was promised by the then Hon'ble Minister for Urban Development at the relevant time and by virtue of the lease deed executed earlier. I do not think there is any force in this submission. Once the petitioner and others entered into the lease with the Corporation, they are bound by the terms of the lease and no more. Question of promissory estoppel does not arise. The relationship between the petitioner and the like on the one hand and the Corporation on the other should be determined only in accordance with the terms of the lease. If that lease has, come to a lawful end then question of invoking doctrine of promissory estoppel in aid of the petitioner does not arise. 8. For the reasons I have given the petition is liable to be rejected. The dismissal of the petition should not in any way affect the rights of the petitioner to make representation or if a representation is made. to the Corporation or the. Government, such representation may be considered favourably for granting alternate accommodation to construct shops in or about the area where the petitioner and the others were trading as petty traders. 9. Subject to the above observation, the petition is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. 10. Petition dismissed.