JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Mathur, CJ.: All these three public interest litigations are connected with each other therefore they are being disposed by the common order. One Bekar Bazar Co-operative Housing Society filed a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 11752 (W) of 1992 in this Court and prayed that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the respondents to cancel, withdraw and/or rescind the purported attempt to transfer Plot No. 10 at Chawkganiagachi Mouza, J.L. No. 24 in Kasba P.S. to the Film Institute and it was further prayed that direction may be given to the State to execute the rehabilitation scheme for the members of the petitioner at Plot No.10, Chawkganiagachi Mouza, J.L. No. 24, P.S. Kasba and they also prayed that the respondents be restrained from handing over possession of the premises to the institute. In the writ petition being W.P. No.6524 (w) of 1999 filed by Bekar Bazar Co-Operative Housing Society it was prayed that the respondent/State may be restrained from evicting the members of the petitioner society from their present place of occupation and they should not be evicted from the present place of occupation till the rehabilitation scheme as adopted by the Government is implemented. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are that the petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society registered under the Societies Registration Act known as Bekar Bazar Co-operative Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as the society). The petitioner submitted that they have 500 refugee families who are members of the society and they are residing on the bank of Tollynallah extended from Garia to Kudghat since 1970 and they have no other dwelling and/or place of work and they have been carrying on their retail trade and/or earning their livelihood from this dwelling place. It is alleged that the members of the society made several representations to the authorities including the Administrator in Charge of Rehabilitation at the material point of time and they were assured from time to time that they will be rehabilitated by the settlement of land at Mouza Nayabad at Plot Nos.191, 194 and 195 measuring 29.01 acres of land was identified for settlement in favour of the petitioner society. Meetings were held for implementation of the scheme for rehabilitation of the members of this society on 24th January, 1990 in the Chamber of the Chief Executive Engineer, Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as CMDA) and in that the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare and Refugee Relief & Rehabilitation also participated. It was decided that the scheme be implemented for rehabilitation of the members of the said society. It is alleged that eventually in 1988 the rehabilitation programme of your petitioners member became one of the components of CMDA's "Pavements Dwellers Project" with the financial assistance of the Central Government. Thereafter, the petitioners were invited by the District Administration, South 24 Parganas to attend several joint meetings held at the office of the CMDA and the office of the District Magistrate and in that meeting some of the officers of HUDCO were present to work out the modalities for operation of the scheme. It is alleged that on 27th November, 1989 the Minister in Charge directed the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas to expedite the rehabilitation scheme and it was also alleged that in the joint meeting dated 7th February, 1989 a resolution was taken to the effect that the CMDA in consultation with HUDCO will prepare a layout plan of the societies rehabilitation scheme on the said plot of land. It is alleged that the CMDA in consultation with HUDCO prepared a layout plan for the rehabilitation scheme and handed over the same to the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South). It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 24 lakhs was given to the District Administration by the CMDA for such development and physical infrastructure for the said scheme at Chakganiagachi Mouza. It is alleged that in pursuance of that scheme the members of the society applied for house building loans from HUDCO at Calcutta. Since the scheme was not implemented and again a meeting was held on 24th January, 1990 in the Chamber of the Chief Executive Officer, CMDA and in that a complete development plan was evolved and the plots were also demarcated and it was resolved that the members of the society would shift to the said project site at Chakganiagachi Mouza after quitting their encroachment on the bank of Tolly Nalla. Despite all these resolutions no step was taken and again on 29th April, 1992 the petitioners made representations to the Government including the Chief Minister to complete the rehabilitation scheme. However, it is submitted that to their utter surprise found a news item appeared in "Ganashakti" on 13th May, 1992 under the caption "Kendroke Jami Dilo Rajya Sarkar" (State gave land to the Centre ). It appeared that Plot No.10, of the Chawk Ganiagachi on which layout plan was prepared for rehabilitation has been handed over to the film institute. It is alleged that as soon as the petitioner read this news item they again approached the Government by filing a representation to the Chief Minister. It is alleged that despite their protest the aforesaid land was handed over to the film institute. Therefore, the petitioners filed the writ petition being C.O. No.11752 (W) of 1992 and prayed as aforesaid that this plot should not be given to the film institute. Thereafter another writ petition was filed by Bekar Bazar Co-operative Housing Society being W.P. No.6524 (w) of 1999 and prayed that the rehabilitation scheme may be prepared and the authorities be restrained from evicting the members of the said society from the land in question. Another writ petition being W.P. No.945 of 2001 by the Secretary of the Bekar Bazar Co-operative Housing Society for the self same reliefs as mentioned in the above two writ petitions. Hence all the three writ petitions are clubbed together and are being disposed of by a common order. 3. The stand taken by the respondent in their affidavit in opposition was that all the sincere efforts were made to rehabilitate these persons who are living on the bank of Tolly Nalla to some other suitable places, but despite their best of efforts they could not locate a proper place for their rehabilitation. 3. The stand taken by the respondent in their affidavit in opposition was that all the sincere efforts were made to rehabilitate these persons who are living on the bank of Tolly Nalla to some other suitable places, but despite their best of efforts they could not locate a proper place for their rehabilitation. It is submitted that it is true that at one point of time a plan was prepared for settlement of these persons at Plot No.10 at Chawkganiagachi and subsequently Plot No.13 Chawkganiagachi in Jadavpur P.S. was earmarked for alternative accommodation and the matter progressed with greater intensity with the CMDA and the District Administration were coordinating to prepare a scheme for a plot ofland at Plot No.13, Chawkganiagachi but despite sincere efforts by both the CMDA and the Municipal Authorities they could not finalise allotment of Plot No.13, Chawkganiagachi as it was already occupied. It is submitted that at Plot No.10, the Government of India constituted a Film Institute and therefore, the land at Plot No.10 was allotted for establishment of a Film Institute in the memory of Late Satyajit Roy. When all these matters were being heard the State Government was given a number of opportunities to explore the possibility of locating some land for alternative rehabilitation of all these persons as these persons are residing at the bank of Tolly Nalla for a long time. However, ultimately all their efforts for rehabilitation failed because the Government came forward with a reply that they have explored the possibility in and around Calcutta and submitted that it is not possible to locate some land for rehabilitation of the members of the petitioners. Mr. Dutta appearing for the State took time to explore the possibility, but he reported the matter back and submitted that all the efforts to locate some land for rehabilitation of the members of the society has failed. A report of the Additional District Magistrate, DL & LRO was also filed in Court in which he has reported that he has explored the possibility of vested agricultural or non-agricultural land in and around Calcutta but it was not possible to get any land in and around Calcutta for allotment for the rehabilitation programme as most of the non-agricultural land in the District are either tanks or roads or graveyards and they are not suitable for allotment. So far as the agricultural land is concerned wherever they are situated are already occupied or under cultivation under Patta given to these persons. The tank lands are wet lands and they cannot be allotted. Therefore, the net result is that despite being given number of opportunities to the State they could not point out any suitable land in and around Calcutta for rehabilitation of the members of the society. On the contrary they have contested that they made all the efforts to get some land for rehabilitation of the members of the society but because of lack of land the members of the society cannot be rehabilitated, they have also taken the stand that the petitioners are trespassers and they have no right to seek mandamus for their rehabilitation. It is also submitted that if such persons are rehabilitated then it will give a wrong signal that anyone can take the law in his own hand and occupy the State land and thereafter call upon the State to legitimise their claim for rehabilitation. It is also submitted that the Nallah is required to be desilted as it is a part of Adiganga and if it is not cleaned it will give rise to a lot of sanitation problem and pollute the environment and life of the people residing in Calcutta. It is also pointed out that it is a part of Ganga Action Plan initiated by the Central Government for cleaning River Ganga throughout its length and as a part of Phase II of the said plan this needs cleaning up and desilting the Nalla. This project has been financed jointly by the Central and the State Government. It is submitted that cleaning of this Nalla would be of immense benefits to the millions of people residing in Calcutta. This project has been financed jointly by the Central and the State Government. It is submitted that cleaning of this Nalla would be of immense benefits to the millions of people residing in Calcutta. It is also pointed out that in another Public Interest Litigation filed by one Rebati Ranjan Bhattacharjee being C.O. No.9502 (w) of 1996 several directions were given by this Court from time to time to the authorities for cleaning up of River Ganga and vacating the unauthorised occupants from its bank but because of the unauthorised occupation by the members of the petitioner society over the bank of this Nalla these orders could not be effectively implemented as all the silts have to be taken out from this Nalla is to be deposited at the bank for that purpose all these persons are required to be removed from the bank of the Nalla. Another writ petition has been filed by the said Rebati Ranjan Bhattachmjee being W.P. No.4777 (W) of 2000 wherein it was prayed that the direction given by this Court for cleaning, desilting and dredging of Adiganga (Tolly Nalla) be implemented in time frame has not been complied and State be directed to comply the order. This writ petition will be dealt with separately. 4. In this background the question before us is what direction can be given in these public interest litigations. In this connection learned counsels for the petitioner has strenuously urged before us that in a country like ours State being a Welfare State is under obligation to provide proper shelter to such persons and Article 21 of the Constitution provides that the Citizens of the country have a right to life and a right to seek a shelter from the State. In this connection reference was made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Olga Tellies vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, reported in AIR 1986 SC 180 , wherein their Lordships observed: "It is apparent that their eviction from pavements and slums will lead to deprivation of their livelihood and consequently to the deprivation of life. But the Constitution does not put an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty. By Article 21, such deprivation has to be according to the procedure established by law. But the Constitution does not put an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty. By Article 21, such deprivation has to be according to the procedure established by law. In the first place, footpaths or pavements or public properties which are intended to serve the convenience of the general public. They are not laid for private use and indeed their use for a private purpose frustrates the very object for which they are carved out from portions of public streets". 5. It is true that the petitioner has a right to life and livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution but by that it does not mean that persons who are trespassers over the land is to be protected and their illegal occupation is to be legitimised. In the present case as we have seen that efforts were made by the State to somehow prepare a scheme for the rehabilitation of these persons but wherever land is required for rehabilitation it is in occupation of other people. Therefore, to evict one person for rehabilitating another will create another problem. This is a human problem and the struggle between environment and livelihood is an endless struggle. Therefore, one has to see that how far both can be harmoniously situated. Sometimes it becomes impossible because of the problem that people who are occupying and living at one particular piece of land for fairly long time, be as trespassers, they have to be evicted from the place so as to restore environment life, free flowing of water from this Nalla, otherwise it will further lead to human miseries. Those who are residing on the bank of this Nalla for sufficiently long time are trespassers and therefore for cleaning, desilting and dredging these persons have to be evicted. In order to find some place for the alternative accommodation for these persons who are being sought to be removed from this place we gave a number of opportunities to the State to explore some place around Calcutta or beyond Calcutta so that some place could be provided to these persons. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the State took number of opportunities to explore such possibility and some meetings were also held with the officers of the State but ultimately despite all the efforts, the State could not locate any place for rehabilitation of these persons. 6. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the State took number of opportunities to explore such possibility and some meetings were also held with the officers of the State but ultimately despite all the efforts, the State could not locate any place for rehabilitation of these persons. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners seriously invoked the principle of promissory estoppel and contended that as per the meetings which have taken place earlier schemes were framed and certain rehabilitation programme was prepared. Therefore, the State is estopped from going back. In that the learned Counsel has invited our attention to Shri Guru Singh Sabha vs. Defence Colony Welfare Association, 1993(1) SCC 666; Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Assessment) vs. Dharmendra Trading Co., AIR 1988 SC 1247 ; Union of India vs. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., 1985(4) SCC 369 ; Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., 1979 (2) SCC 409 ; and Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India, 1988(1) SCC 86 . 7. Each of the cases referred to above has been decided on their own peculiar facts. The question of promissory estoppel is a mixed question of fact and law. In order to invoke the principles of promissory estoppel the first and foremost thing is that there should be a representation by one party on which the other party has acted to their detriments. In the present case there was no representation made by the State nor any promise was made by the State that they will allot certain piece of land for the rehabilitation of the members of the society. It is true that from time to time meetings were held with the Minister of that time and with the State authorities as well as the authorities of the CMDA and certain schemes were prepared for rehabilitation but somehow this scheme could not be materialised. The State in their affidavit in opposition has taken the stand that these persons are trespassers and they have no right over the land in question and the State is not under any obligation to legitimise this illegal trespassers by giving them an alternative land for their rehabilitation. Right from the beginning when the W.P. No.11752 (W) of 1992 the State has taken the stand that these persons have no right to the alternative land. Right from the beginning when the W.P. No.11752 (W) of 1992 the State has taken the stand that these persons have no right to the alternative land. So far as invoking the principle of promissory estoppel is concerned we regret to say that it does not apply to the present situation as there was no promise made by the State or the State is under no obligation to rehabilitate these persons who are encroachers on the land. It is true that efforts were made by convening meetings with the members of the society and other authorities and the Government has all the time made efforts to provide some rehabilitation to these persons but there was no commitment made by the State in any of the communication that the State is under an obligation to rehabilitate these persons. Therefore, the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case. 8. However, it is true that it is a human problem and human problem is to be approached in humane manner. Eviction of these persons from the present site is bound to cause serious problems to these unauthorised occupants as they are there for a long time. We gave considerable time to the Government to explore the possibility of a suitable alternative land for their rehabilitation but Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the State expressed the inability of the State because of lack of vacant land in or around Calcutta. At the same time by directing rehabilitation of these persons will amount to giving direction to the State to legitimise illegal occupants or trespassers. Therefore, we do not propose to issue any mandamus on this public interest litigation. However, since it is a human problem Government should approach the matter sympathetically and keep the door open if any other suitable land is available then they may consider the same for allotment to these persons. However, we do not issue any direction and leave the matter to the State Government. Hence we dismiss all these three writ petitions. No order as to costs. Girish Chandra Gupta, J.: I agree. Later on Prayer for stay of operation of this order considered and rejected. If urgent xerox certified copy of this order is applied for the same be supplied to the parties expeditiously. Ashok Kumar Mathur, CJ. Girish Chandra Gupta, J. All the three writ petitions are dismissed.