JUDGMENT A. N. Varma, J. - The various petitioners who are carrying on the business of commission agents of fruits in the town of Moradabad are aggrieved by a notification dated 21-1-1983 issued by the State Government under Section 7 (2) (b) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (the Adhiniyam for short) declaring that the wholesale transactions of food-grains, vegetables and fruits shall be carried on only at a Market Complex situate in village Majhola within the principal Market Yard of the Moradabad Market Area as well as by the notices issued consequent thereto by the respondent-Mandi 'Samiti asking the petitioners to shift their business to the newly developed Market Complex at Majhola. 2. The first ground urged was that the respondent-Mandi Samiti is estopped from asking the petitioners to shift their business to the aforesaid Market at Majhola The contention was based on the allegation that the petitioners were carrying on their business in a Market situate within the city at Amroha Gate called the Amroha Gate Bazar for a long time which is an ideal market from every point of view for the sort of business in which the petitioners were engaged. When the petitioners came to know of the project of the construction of a new marketing complex at Majhola by the respondent-Mandi Samiti they protested whereupon the Mandi Samiti asked the petitioners to purchase for themselves a separate plot of land which would be declared as a Sub-Market Yard by the Mandi Samiti under the provisions of the Act and if the petitioners constructed a separate market for themselves they would not be shifted to the newly developed Market Complex at Majhola. Acting on this assurance the petitioners jointly purchased a piece of land in a newly developed area of Karaula in the district of Moradabad. Subsequently, Mandi Samiti went back on its word and started pressing the petitioners to shift their business the new Market Complex at Majhola. The petitioners thereupon approached the Minister concerned who asked the Director of Mandi Samiti to look into the matter. The Director of Mandi Samiti in his turn asked the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti to inquire into the matter. It is next urged that the Secretary vide his letter dated 9-4-83 asked the petitioner to submit the necessary documents regarding the purchase of land at Karaula. The Director of Mandi Samiti in his turn asked the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti to inquire into the matter. It is next urged that the Secretary vide his letter dated 9-4-83 asked the petitioner to submit the necessary documents regarding the purchase of land at Karaula. In short the allegation is that all these authorities were a soring die petitioners all along that they would declare the land purchased by the petitioners at Karaula as a Sub-Market Yard but instead of sticking to their assurance the petitioners were being asked to shift to the Market Complex at Majhola. 3. These allegations have been categorically denied by the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti in the counter affidavit. The Secretary asserts that no such assurance was given to petitioners. Nor had the petitioners purchased the land at the instance of the Mandi Samiti or on the assurance that the Market proposed to be constructed by them at Karaula would be declared a Sub-Market Yard. It is further asserted that as is usual with the traders whenever there is a move to ask the traders to shift to the marketing complex constructed by a Mandi Samiti, the petitioners too were attempting to avoid shifting to the newly developed market at Majhola. They were pressing the Mandi Samiti to permit them to carry on business at a place of their choice, namely, at Karaula to which Mandi Samiti did not agree. Thereupon, they approached the State Government through the Minister. The Minister merely forwarded the matter to the Director who in turn forwarded the papers to the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti. Be that as it may, the Mandi Samiti did not give any such assurance to the petitioners. The Market Complex constructed by the Mandi Samiti at Majhola is ideally suited to the business of the. petitioners and the allegations to the contrary are wrong. 4. Having considered the allegations and the counter allegations made by the parties as well as the annexures relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we have not the least hesitation in holding that the petitioners have totally failed to substantiate the plea of estoppel. The material furnished by the petitioners does not go beyond establishing that the petitioners were approaching the respondents for permitting them to carry on business at Karaula. The material furnished by the petitioners does not go beyond establishing that the petitioners were approaching the respondents for permitting them to carry on business at Karaula. There is, however, no reliable evidence to prove that the petitioners proposal had at any lime been accepted by the Mandi Samiti or the State Government or that it was at the behest of the Mandi Samiti that the petitioners had entered into agreement for purchase of land in their own name in village Karaula or even that the respondents had agreed directly or by implication to declare the land purchased by he petitioners at Karaula as a Sub-Market Yard. As mentioned above, the petitioners had also approached the State Government in this connection but the Minister concerned had merely referred the matter without any commitment in a routine way to the Director who too in his turn forwarded the proposal to the Secretary. The Secretary, no doubt, had asked the petitioners to submit their documents vide his letter dated 9-4-83 (Annexure 3 to the petition) for further action. Certain conditions had been laid down therein for compliance before the petitioners proposal could be accepted However, the petitioners have failed to prove that they had complied with the conditions laid down therein so as to bind the Mandi Samiti to any supposed promise or assurance. It is clear that the negotiation between the petitioners and respondents never crossed the stage of a proposal. The proposal was obviously not acceptable to the Mandi Samiti as is evident from the last notice issued by the Secretary, Mandi Samiti (vide Annexure 10 to the petition). The petitioners have thus miserably failed to establish the plea of estoppel. 5. This brings us to the next submission which is equally untenable. The contention was that village Majhola does not fall within the limits of the Principal Market Yard of Moradabad. It was not disputed that the area falling within the local limits of Municipal Board Moradabad was declared principal Market Yard under Section 7 of the Act. The respondents have filed an affidavit on 16-10-87 which has remained controverted. Annexed to this affidavit is a copy of a notification dated 31-3-67 issued under Section 7 of the U.P. Municipalities Act which gives the details of certain areas which were included in the municipality of Moradabad w. e. f. 10-4-1987. The respondents have filed an affidavit on 16-10-87 which has remained controverted. Annexed to this affidavit is a copy of a notification dated 31-3-67 issued under Section 7 of the U.P. Municipalities Act which gives the details of certain areas which were included in the municipality of Moradabad w. e. f. 10-4-1987. A perusal of this notification as well as the averments made in this affidavit clearly establish that village Majhola was already brought within the municipal limits of Moradabad. This provides a complete answer to the petitioners submission. 6. The third contention was that the State Government could not in the facts and circumstances of the present case have considered it necessary or expedient in public interest to issue the impugned notification under Section 7 (2) (b) inasmuch as till the date of the notification the Mandi Samiti had not framed its bye-laws prescribing the limit of retail sale and in this connection reliance was placed on Section 2 (ee) of the Act defining the terms, wholesale transaction. The contention is devoid of any merit. In the counter affidavit it has been asserted that the bye-laws were already in existence on the relevant date. Paragraph 40 of the petition containing the allegation in support of this contention has been refuted by the respondent in paragraph 31 of the counter affidavit in which it has been asserted that the bye-laws prescribing the limit had been adopted by the Mandi Samiti from the date of inception of the bye-laws. Even assuming that on the date on which the impugned notification was issued the limits contemplated under Section 2 (ee) has not been prescribed under the bye-laws, a decision with regard to the selection of a suitable site for construction of a marketing complex for wholesale business of fruits, food-grains and vegetables etc., could validity be taken as undisputed wholesale business of food-grains, vegetables and fruits at Moradabad as understood in common commercial parlance was already being carried on for long the Market Area, Moradabad at Amroha Gate Bazar. The State Government could therefore well be made aware of the problems arising from the location of the old wholesale market in these commodities at Amaroha Gate and of the need to have a suitable market for wholesale transactions in fruits etc. at a proper place in accordance with the requirements of a market for wholesale transactions as understood in commercial parlance. at a proper place in accordance with the requirements of a market for wholesale transactions as understood in commercial parlance. In this view it cannot be said that it was impossible for the State Government to have formed an opinion as to the necessity or expediency in public interest to make a declarations such as is contemplated under Section 7 (2) (b). 7. Learned counsel next argued that the principles of natural justice were violated in that the petitioners were afforded no opportunity of putting forward their view point before the issuance of the notification. The submission is totally devoid of any merit. By a series of decisions of this Court as well as of Supreme Court, it has been firmly established that the power exercisable under Section 7 (2) (b) is essentially legislative in character. There was hence no to invite any objections before die issue of the notification. 8. Lastly, learned counsel made a feeble attempt to submit that the site selected by the respondents at Majhola is wholly unsuited to the kind of business in which the petitioners are engaged. We regret we cannot accept the argument. It is not for this court to pronounce on the suitability of the site as it is primarily an executive function with which this Court cannot concern itself. The selection of the site is based on variety of relevant to the wading facilities as well as us impact on the inhabitants of the Market Area generally. In any case, on the material on record we are not satisfied that any interference is called for by this court on this score. 9. Learned counsel also submitted that adequate number of shops have not yet been constructed so as to justify insistence by the Mandi Samiti that the petitioners shift their business immediately. This allegation has been emphatically denied in the Counter affidavit. It is asserted that there is no dearth of the shops a id that he many as 22 shops have been constructed which are sufficient to accommodate the wholesale trade in food grains, vegetables and fruits 10 The petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. But we make no order as to costs.