This is to dispose of WP(C) No. 205 of 2002 and WP(C) No. 635 of 2003 wherein closely connected questions of facts and laws are involved. Both the cases have been filed by Lessee's Association First Floor Imphal Municipal Council, Shopping Centre, B.T Road, North Polo ground, Imphal West, one through its Secretary and other one through its President. 2. In WP(C) No. 205 of 2002, the petitioner is praying mainly, for quashing the order being No. 2/1/2001-MAHUD dated 16.4.2001, issued by the Commissioner/MAHUD, Govt. of Manipur, in the name of the Governor of the State, ordering that any construction on Government/public places by individual, groups or societies either with or without the approval of the Government should remain suspended till such time a view was taken by the Government and separate orders were issued by the Government in this regard and the order being No. IMC/82(iii)/99(Pt-1) dated 6.2.2002, issued by the Chairperson, Imphal Municipal Council, ordering that all kinds of constructions including construction of paka shops/stalls at the side of the B.T.Road, etc. irrespective of whether such constructions were approved or not, should remain suspended till such time a view was taken by the Government and separate orders were issued by the Government in this regard. 3. In WP(C) No. 635 of 2003, the petitioner is praying mainly for quashing the order being No. 2/37/99-MAHUD dated 30.4.2003, issued by the Commissioner (MAHUD), Govt. of Manipur in the name of the Governor of the State, suspending the execution of the Resolution No.2 (ii) passed by the Imphal Municipal Council on 17.2.2003 and prohibiting construction of any kind over the said place, etc. Further prayer of the petitioners is for revoking the order, being No.IMC/82(iii)/99(Pt-1), dated 29.4.2003, issued by the Chairperson, Imphal Municipal Council staying earlier order of even number, dated 17.4.2003 issued to all lessees of First Floor at the BT Road for construction of the First Floor Paka Shops in pursuance of Resolution No. 2(ii) dated 17.2.2003, with immediate effect until further order. 4. I have heard Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Asok Potsangbam, learned Advocate General, Manipur assisted by Mr.S.Suresh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Government respondents as well as Mr. M.Joychandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3. The pleadings of the parties are also perused. 5. 4. I have heard Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Asok Potsangbam, learned Advocate General, Manipur assisted by Mr.S.Suresh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Government respondents as well as Mr. M.Joychandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3. The pleadings of the parties are also perused. 5. Main dispute in these two cases is on the question of legality or otherwise of the Government's orders suspending /prohibiting constructions of First Floor Paka Shops/stalls on the southern side of the B.T.Road to the adjacent north of the polo ground contrary to the Government's earlier approval for the said construction. On the basis of the materials before the court, it is ascertained that the State Government decided to review its earlier decision regarding the said construction in the public interest. It has been brought to this court's notice that the earlier decision of the State Government regarding the said construction was taken in spite of the objection from the Planning & Development Authority constituted under the Manipur Town and Country Planning Act of 1975 and in violation of the land use plan of the Master Plan for Greater Imphal - 2011 AD. There is no dispute that the notification being No.4/196/2003-PDA, dated 12.01.2004, has already been issued under sub-section 1 of section 36 of the Manipur Town and Country Planning Act, 1975 regarding widening of the B.T.Road. It is also ascertained that shops/stalls on both sides of the B.T.Road including the newly constructed shops on the adjacent northern side of the polo ground will have to be removed to provide the required space in connection with the said widening of the B.T.Road. It has also been brought to this court's notice that after due consideration of all relevant factors on 28.10.2005, the State Government reviewed its earlier decision regarding the construction of stalls/shopping complex on the adjacent northern side of the polo ground. The said decision of the State Government was communicated to all concerned, vide Government letter No.2/37/99-MAHUD, dated 5.11.2005. Its copy is at Annexure-G/9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 on 28.11.2005 in connection with WP(C) No. 635 of 2003. 6. The said decision of the State Government was communicated to all concerned, vide Government letter No.2/37/99-MAHUD, dated 5.11.2005. Its copy is at Annexure-G/9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 on 28.11.2005 in connection with WP(C) No. 635 of 2003. 6. Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since the State Government has already taken a decision for widening of the B.T.Road by removing all the stalls on both sides of the road, etc, as a part of the works to be taken up for improving the condition of Imphal City in the public interest, the petitioner will not insist for quashing the impugned orders and for examining their legality or otherwise on merit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, appropriate measures for rehabilitation in favour of the members of the petitioner-association are required to be taken by the respondents so that interests of the members of the petitioner- association are protected to a reasonable extent. Further, according to the petitioner's counsel, as a result of the said change in the Government's policy, injustice is being caused to the members of the petitioner's association. 7. There is no dispute that the State Government conveyed its approval, vide letter No. 2/37-99-MAHUD, dated 19.1.2001, in respect of the construction of the first and second floor of paka stalls/shopping complex at the B.T.Road on the north of the polo ground as well as in respect of list of 45 lessees proposed by the Imphal Municipal Council. A copy of the said letter is at Annexure-A/14 of the WP(C) No. 635 of 2003. The Chairperson, Board of Administrator, Imphal Municipal Council also issued an order being No. IMC/82(iii)/99(Pt-1), 24.1.2001 stating to the effect that 45 persons listed therein were allotted the leasehold of the shops/stalls at the first floor of Imphal Municipal Council shopping centre at B.T.Road to the north of the polo ground under the terms and conditions set forth in Annexure attached to the order. A copy of the said order is at Annexure-A/15 of the WP(C) No. 635 of 2003. According to the petitioner's counsel, the members of the petitioner- association are the said 45 lessees in whose favours shops/stalls were allotted on leasehold basis at the first floor. A copy of the said order is at Annexure-A/15 of the WP(C) No. 635 of 2003. According to the petitioner's counsel, the members of the petitioner- association are the said 45 lessees in whose favours shops/stalls were allotted on leasehold basis at the first floor. Further according to the petitioner's counsel, the members of the petitioner- association had already deposited their respective shares of installments to the account of the Imphal Municipal Council for meeting the expenses required for construction of the said stalls/shopping complex before the change of policy by the Government. It has also been brought to this court's notice that 48 stalls holders, who were occupying the ground floor of the stalls lying on the north of the polo ground, have been accommodated to the temporary stalls constructed at or near erstwhile Old District Hospital site. 8. No doubt, the members of the petitioner-association had deposited their respective shares of installments believing the assurance of the Imphal Municipal Council as well as the approval of the State Government to the effect that they would be given their respective stalls at the first floor of the shopping complex. Thus, they had altered their positions to some extent believing the assurance of the Imphal Municipal Council and the approval of the State Government. However, where public interest is likely to be harmed or affected, neither the doctrine of legitimate expectation nor the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be allowed to be pressed into service by any citizen against the state authorities. In view of this position, the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner for not examining the legality or otherwise of the impugned orders on merit is appreciated. 9. Because of the change in the policy of the State Government made in the public interest, despite having deposited their respective shares of installments for meeting the expenses for construction of the said shopping complex, the said members of the petitioner-association will not be getting their respective stalls which were promised to be given to them by the authorities. 9. Because of the change in the policy of the State Government made in the public interest, despite having deposited their respective shares of installments for meeting the expenses for construction of the said shopping complex, the said members of the petitioner-association will not be getting their respective stalls which were promised to be given to them by the authorities. In the facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion about the rights of the said members of the petitioner-association for compensation for the losses or damages caused to them as a result of the said change in the policy of the State Government, it will be fair, just and reasonable on the part of the respondents No.1 and 3 to refund the amounts deposited by the said members of the petitioner -association with interest on the said amounts at the rate which the concerned members would have received had the amount been deposited in a Nationalized Bank as a fixed deposit for the period from the date of his deposit till the date of his getting the refund. Both the respondents No.1 and 3 shall equally be responsible for the said refund. Respondents No.1 and 3 are hereby directed to take necessary steps in this connection so that the said members of the petitioner-association get their money back with interest within a reasonable time which should not be more than four months from today. It is to be noted that the position of the members of the petitioner-association, who were not actually occupying any stall cannot be equated to that of those 48 stall holders, who were actually occupying stalls at the ground floor and doing business at the relevant time. Despite the above direction for refund, liberties are given to the parties to come to any other just and legal settlement. 10. With this directions and observations, these two writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.