S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THE Court: Both these applications involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE petitioners to these applications, inter alia, have prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw and/or cancel and/or rescind the notices issued by the Superintendent, Gariahat Market, Calcutta asking the petitioners to permanently shift their respective business from the places where they have been holding their shops. ( 3 ) THE fact in Satadal Bakshi and Ors. 's case briefly stated is as follows : ( 4 ) THE petitioners of these applications had been allotted open lands for carrying their respective businesses in the said Market by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. ( 5 ) THE petitioner No. 1 carries on coal business in Stall Retail No. 54 measuring 1,260 Sq Ft. in area. ( 6 ) THE petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 carry business of Earthen Wares having respective areas 1,122 sq. ft. and 221 sq. ft, respectively. ( 7 ) THE petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 carry on earthenware business in Stall No, MST-II-30. the area of which is 352 sq. ft. ( 8 ) THE petitioners Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 are carrying on business of earthenware in an area measuring 1,440 sq. ft. each. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, Gariahat Market is being modernised by constructing four blocks, namely, A, B, C and D. Constructions of Blocks C and D have already been completed. The stalls of the petitioners which have been allotted to them are-located in proposed Blocks Nos. A and B which are yet to be constructed. It is stated that the petitioners were given to understand that they would temporarily be shifted to some other portion of the market during the new construction thereof and later on be shifted in Blocks Nos. A and B. By reason of the impugned notices, the petitioners have been allotted their shops being Stall Nos. RB-364, RB-365, RB-366 and RB-367 respectively. ( 10 ) THE petitioner in the other Writ application is Shri Debabrata Chakraborty. He was allotted a Stall measuring 1815 sq. ft. A and B. By reason of the impugned notices, the petitioners have been allotted their shops being Stall Nos. RB-364, RB-365, RB-366 and RB-367 respectively. ( 10 ) THE petitioner in the other Writ application is Shri Debabrata Chakraborty. He was allotted a Stall measuring 1815 sq. ft. The petitioner has contended that the area of the new stall directed to be allowed in his favour is less than 45% of the area in their occupation. It is also alleged that in the case of the petitioner that no verification certificates has been issued. According to the petitioner, other stall owners have been allotted the same an larger area and this by reason of the impugned order of allotment they have been discriminated against it. ( 11 ) THE respondent Corporation in their counter-affidavit inter alia, stated that the petitioners have been shifted permanently. It was further the case of the respondents that the petitioners had been allotted vacant land whereupon only temporary structures were constructed but in lieu thereof the petitioners are being allotted fully constructed area which is 50% of the area at present in occupation of the petitioners and they are also being charged a low rent compared to the rent which is being charged from the new tenants. It is also alleged that the petitioners in Satadal Bakshi's case had given undertakings to the Corporation to the effect that they would accept and/or surrender 50% of the area of their existing stalls after construction or modernisation of the market. The further case of the respondent is that for ventilation etc. 50% of the vacant land can only be utilised in the construction of the building in terms of the Building Rules. It is stated that the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 undertook in writing to Mayor-in-Council by a letter dated 27-7-88 to surrender 50% of the area whereas in respect of the petitioners Nos. 4 and 5. Sanyashi Charan Pal undertook to the Corporation to surrender 50% of stall area and gave indemnity bond. Other petitioners also undertook to the Corporation to surrender 50% of the area. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the-petitioners, inter-a1ia, submitted that admittedly the petitioners have discriminated against it and in that view of the matter the petitioners should be allowed to occupy the same area which they were possessed of earlier. Other petitioners also undertook to the Corporation to surrender 50% of the area. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the-petitioners, inter-a1ia, submitted that admittedly the petitioners have discriminated against it and in that view of the matter the petitioners should be allowed to occupy the same area which they were possessed of earlier. It was further submitted that the petitioners Nos. 6. 7, 8 and 9 did not give undertaking to Calcutta Municipal Corporation of any nature whatsoever. So far as the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. It is stated that the undertaking was really an offer to surrender 50% in consideration of an order of mutation of the stalls in their names and reduction of stallage/rent but such offer was never accepted by Calcutta Municipal Corporation. It is alleged that the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are still paying rent at the higher rate. With regard to the purported undertaking in respect of the petitioners Nos. 4 and 5, it is stated indemnity bond could not be termed as an undertaking to surrender 50% of the area. It is stated that these petitioners are transferees in interest of the stalls in question from Sri Sanyasi Charan Pal and the deed of sale by Sri Sanyasi Charan Pal in favour of the petitioners was approved by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in terms of prevalent practice. It is stated that the order of approval in respect of the sale deed executed by the aforementioned Sri Sanyasi Charan Pal did not contain the alleged undertaking. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Debabrata Chakraborty had raised two contentions in support of the said application. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been shifted to rear block which is unhygenic and thus the same is not conducive of to carry on a business. It is further submitted that the allotment of the 45% of the area pursuant to the original allotment must be held to be arbitrary and discriminatory and thus violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents however, submitted that so far as Debabrata Chakraborty is concerned the area occupied by him is 1,477. 67 sq ft. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents however, submitted that so far as Debabrata Chakraborty is concerned the area occupied by him is 1,477. 67 sq ft. It was submitted that in terms of Building Rules framed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation only 50% of the vacant area can be utilised. The petitioners are being given constructed shop rooms in places of vacant lands and they do not have to incur any expenditure therefor nor are they required to pay any higher rent It was further stated that the Petitioners would be given some vacant land for their exclusive use. It was further submitted that the Block where the petitioners have been allotted Stalls, is by the side of a wide Road. ( 15 ) IN reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Stall No. Misc. 41 is owned by Mr. Debashish Chakraborty and not by the petitioner. It is, however, been submitted that even if Corporation can construct only on 50% of the present area; as basement and ground floor are being constructed hence the area become 100% of the area of the present stall holders. Thus, the petitioner can easily be given space either in the basement or in the ground-floor. ( 16 ) IT is submitted that Corporation is not giving the built up area free to the petitioner as a special case inasmuch as the Corporation is giving constructed space in the new building free of charge to all the present stall-holders. ( 17 ) THERE cannot be any doubt that new Blocks are being constructed for the purpose of development of the Gariahat Market. Keeping in view the congestion in Road traffic and factor, the development of the said market cannot but by in public interest. The petitionens have also admitted that stalls are allotted keeping in view of the nature of the business carried out in other words a particular class of business would be allowed to carry on in a particular zone. The petitioners, thus, cannot raise any grievances that they have been allotted stalls in the zone in question keeping to view of the nature of the business carried on by them, namely Coal. Earthernware etc. ( 18 ) SO far as the petitioner Sri Debabrata Chakraborty is concerned it is admitted that an area of 1287 sq. ft. The petitioners, thus, cannot raise any grievances that they have been allotted stalls in the zone in question keeping to view of the nature of the business carried on by them, namely Coal. Earthernware etc. ( 18 ) SO far as the petitioner Sri Debabrata Chakraborty is concerned it is admitted that an area of 1287 sq. ft. was-allotted in his favour, out of which in the area of 528 sq. ft. the petitioner's had been carrying on business. The petitioner in this application is thus concerned with 1. 287 sq. ft area and he cannot claim allotment of an area of 1, 815 sq. ft. ( 19 ) WITH a view to appreciate the point involved in this application, the following datas was be noticed:- ( 20 ) THE petitioner has also brought on records another chart showing that various other persons have also been allotted almost similar or more areas allotted to them originally. In the cases of the petitioners, evidently, they have been allotted about 50 % of the lands originally allotted to them. So far as the Misc. Stall No. 41 is concerned it is, however, categorically stated that the said stall had been allotted in the basement and Ground-floor with the similar area i. e. 528 sq. ft. Considering the fact that person similarly situated had been allotted almost similar area or in some cases even more areas, there does not exist any justiciable reason as Act, why the petitioners have been discriminated against him. It was be true as has been submitted by Mr. Bihani that the petitioners have been given some vacant land for their exclusive use but even then the total area allotted to the petitioners is not same to area which is originally allotted to them or near about that. Keeping in view of the fact that other persons similarly situated have been allotted almost similar or longer area, there does not exist any justiciable reason as to why the petitioners should be discriminated. ( 21 ) SO far as the question of estopped raised by Mr. Bihani in Satadal Bakshi and Ors' case is concerned; admittedly, no undertakings had been given by the petitioners Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 thereof. However, So far as the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned evidently their predecessor in interest had given an undertaking. ( 21 ) SO far as the question of estopped raised by Mr. Bihani in Satadal Bakshi and Ors' case is concerned; admittedly, no undertakings had been given by the petitioners Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 thereof. However, So far as the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned evidently their predecessor in interest had given an undertaking. The petitioners, in my opinion, are bound by the undertaking given by their predecessor in interest. Sri Sanyasi Charan Pal categorically stated that he would accept the area of 16 sqm. In place of 32. 71 sqm. and he would also abide by the terms and conditions of the policy decision of the authorities of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation keeping himself satisfied with the said area given to him after the completion of the development programme. ( 22 ) MR. Arun Kumar Pal and Mr. Jagannath Pal voluntarily stated that about 50% of the existing area would be surrendered to the Corporation for implementation of the development work. ( 23 ) THE submission of Mr. Bihani to the effect that the petitioners have substantially given the same area in place of the temporary stalls vacated by them, they are now being given constructed stalls cannot be accepted; in view of the fact that persons similarly situated have also been allotted more or less the same area and in some cases more areas than previously held by them in similar conditions. Thus, no special favour has been shown to the petitioners by the respondents in this regard. Submission made on behalf of Mr. Roy to the effect that the rear block is unhygienic cannot be accepted. In fact Mr. Ray in the time of reply did not press the said point. ( 24 ) MR. Bihani, when questioned, on instruction stated that some shops have not yet been allotted. ( 25 ) IT is, in this situation, difficult to comprehened as to why such petitioners who had not given any undertaking had been discriminated against. However keeping in view the object of the construction of an integrated business complex, the public interest as also the interest of justice, these applications are disposed of in the following terms:- 1. The respondent, Calcutta Municipal Corporation may carry out the construction of the blocks in question. 2. However keeping in view the object of the construction of an integrated business complex, the public interest as also the interest of justice, these applications are disposed of in the following terms:- 1. The respondent, Calcutta Municipal Corporation may carry out the construction of the blocks in question. 2. The petitioners, however, shall be allotted more or less the same area either by way of constructed accommodation or vacant accommodation. It is, however, made clear that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, keeping in view of the practicability of allotment may offer more or less area in relation to the areas which had been originally allotted to them as has been done in the cases of other stall holders. 3. In the event Calcutta Municipal Corporation find difficulty to allot one stall to cover more or less the same area as originally allotted to them at one place, It may allot two stalls in place of one stall to the petitioners in any of the floors of the constructed building. 4. In case by reason of such allotment the petitioners are to be allotted much more area, the petitioner shall pay prevailing market rent which has been charged to the new tenant in relation to such excess area only. 5. In the even the petitioners are allotted shops in some other zone, must give an undertaking to the effect that they would carry on any of the particular business to be carried out therein. 6. The petitioners must render all co-operation with the authorities of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. ( 26 ) THE parties, in the facts and circumstances of the case shall pay and bear their own costs. ( 27 ) ALL parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of this judgment on the usual undertaking. Application disposed of of with direction.