V. S. SIRPURKAR, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by one G. S. Marketing Associates and others. In that writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the decision of the military authorities dated 8th of december, 2005 by which they refused to grant permission to hold a trade fair by using a part of the Kolkata Maidan during the period from 28th of April, 2006 to 9th May, 2006. The said refusal was on the ground that the Calcutta High Court had already in its judgment observed that fairs, exhibitions and other events usually held in Brigade Parade Ground should be reduced to preserve the ecology of the only large open space in Kolkata. The petitioners, inter alia, pleaded that at that time similar such permission was granted to Bengal National Chamber of Commerce and Industry to hold a similar trade fair and, therefore, in refusing the permission to the petitioners, they were discriminated against. The basis of the petitioners' claim was that they had held such fair from 10th September to 22nd September, 2004 and thereafter had cleaned the Maidan and fully restored the same to its original position and the authorities had also expressed satisfaction holding that they had cleaned the Maidan area. The petitioners have accordingly made an application for holding a trade fair in 2006 also. However, that having been refused, they were driven to the Court to file a writ petition. The learned single Judge seems to have dismissed the writ petition after hearing the learned advocate General as also after hearing the military authorities. ( 2 ) IT cannot be disputed that Maidan is the only vacant place left in the otherwise crowded city of Kolkata. Nobody can even dispute that maidan should retain its character as a Maidan because Maidan acts as the lungs of the city. Again, it cannot be disputed that frequent holding of the trade fairs would undoubtedly change the nature of Maidan and would destroy the greenery which is otherwise required to be maintained. There are decisions and one of us (V. S. Sirpurkar,. CJ.) was a party to those decisions where the necessity of retaining the Maidan's character as a Maidan has been reiterated. There are decisions and one of us (V. S. Sirpurkar,. CJ.) was a party to those decisions where the necessity of retaining the Maidan's character as a Maidan has been reiterated. It, therefore, cannot be disputed that the authorities would have the discretion to control the activities of holding such trade fairs in Maidan. At any rate, in the month of November, 2005 one such trade fair has already been held. Now the second fair, which is the book fair in order to be held in January, 2006. From the pleadings of the parties and the arguments, it is clear that the present book fair is in association with the Bengal National Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Government of west Bengal and India Trade Promotion Organisation. The military authorities also have submitted before the learned Single Judge that the said international trade fair was proposed so to be last of its kind and the local military authorities had decided to grant permission only by way of an exception. ( 3 ) WE do not find anything wrong in the military authorities', reducing the number of trade fairs to be held at Maidan which is a very attractive spot for holding the trade fairs. The military authorities are quite justified, according to us, therefore to control the trade fairs and if one trade fair has already been allowed to be held in November, 2005, we do not think that any arbitrariness has been exhibited by the military authorities in refusing the second trade fair on the heel of the first trade fair in the month of April, 2006. The learned Judge has relied on the permission granted on 2nd December, 2005 wherein it has been specified that the GOC of the headquarters has received an undertaking from the Government of West Bengal that the industrial trade fair would be last to be ever held. In that permission the millitary authorities had taken note of the decsion of the Calcutta High Court dated 27th November, 2003 in wp No. 7987[w] of 2002. It is apparent that in that view the military authorities insisted that a permission should be sought from the Calcutta High Court for holding a book fair. Accordingly, an application came to be filed before the green Bench. That application was without number. The order so produced before us by Advocate General suggests that on 2. 1. It is apparent that in that view the military authorities insisted that a permission should be sought from the Calcutta High Court for holding a book fair. Accordingly, an application came to be filed before the green Bench. That application was without number. The order so produced before us by Advocate General suggests that on 2. 1. 2006 the Green Bench had permitted for holding of the book fair only as a last chance. The Bench has also issued some directions. The Bench has noted in the order this would be the last time for holding such book fair and it would be the last time for the defence authorities to permit such activity. The Bench has also expressed specifically that a matter of book fair would be a different aspect and it seems that on that ground permission was granted. ( 4 ) BEFORE us, Sri Banerjee, the learned senior Counsel very earnestly urged that in spite of the fact that such trade fair was going to be in reality a last trade fair and yet a permission was granted to hold a book fair, it would be only just that permission should be granted to his clients to hold another trade fair in the month of April, 2006. We do not think so. A trade fair is different form a book fair. A trade fair would involve much more temporary construction activities. There would be number of constructions, stalls for which the ground would definitely be under pressure. That is not so with the book fair which is of fourteen days' duration. We are not here to distinguish and to show the different points between the book fair and the trade fair but in our opinion the military authorities have not committed anything wrong or it cannot be said that they have discriminated against the petitioners when they refused them the permission. True it is that after that the book fair is being held but as we have seen the character of book fair has to be different from the trade fair and again it is pointed out to us that now there would be no such trade fair or book fair or any fair in Maidan particularly because an alternative site is being prepared by the State of West Bengal near the Science City. ( 5 ) WE, therefore, do not think that the petitioners have a right in holding an international trade fair merely because the earlier international trade fair was allowed to be held in November, 2005 and a book fair is allowed to be held in january, 2006. That by itself does not create any right in the petitioners. The petitioners have made a curious prayer in the writ petition as well as in this appeal and that is of staying the book fair. We have already clarified that book fair has already been permitted under the exceptional circumstances, though by another Bench of this Court. Therefore, we cannot accede to the request of staying the aforementioned book fair. Mr. Banerjee then very earnestly urged that there was a political rally held in the second week of January and for that brigade Parade ground was used. We do not think that merely because a political rally was allowed to be held that would justify the use of a part of Maidan [in contra-distinction with Brigade Parade ground] for holding an international trade fair. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the learned senior Counsel for holding an international trade fair. All the matters argued before the learned single Judge have been very appropriately held with by him with cogent reasons. We confirm the order. The appeal has no merit and the same is treated on the day's list and stands dismissed along with the application. Appeal dismissed.