( 1 ) THE petitioner, a senior citizen having lost his land being plot Nos. 151 and 126 in Sy. No 4/1 A. on account of acquisition for formation of residential sites by the belgaum Urban Development Authority was allotted site No. 1467 under Scheme No. 35. It is the claim of the petitioner that the said plots measuring 0-7-7 were purchased from his vendor Sri Ganapath G. Valvekar under a registered sale deed dated 19-2-1970. The petitioner further claims to have made a representation to the 2nd respondent - Urban development Authority bringing to its notice that his family consists of three children and wife, with a request to allot another site adjacent to site No. 1467 measuring 40' x 60', in response to which the 2nd respondent authority by a letter dated 28-9-2005 Annexure-C promised to consider the request after the disposal of the appeal pending before this Court. According to the petitioner, there being no litigation pending as on date, the 2nd respondent without considering the request, by letter dated 9-2-2007 Annexure 'e' called upon him to execute a lease-cum-sale deed with seven days or receive the compensation amount of Rs. 43. 543/ -. Hence, this petition for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 15-9-2005 and 29-1-2007 Annexure-A and B. ( 2 ) SRI Ravi G. Sabhahit, learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to point out with reference to any law. much less, the Act or rules governing the allotment of sites by an urban Development Authority whereunder acquisition of lands would entitle a landlord, as a matter of right to seek allotment of sites either in lieu of compensation or otherwise. According to the learned counsel, there being no right in law, the petitioner has invoked the sympathetic jurisdiction of the authority and the legitimate expectancy on account of the promise extended in the letter Annexure-C. ( 3 ) IN the first place, the claim of legitimate expectancy arises only if it is shown that the promise extended was based on a clear legal right founded in law. The mere promise to consider the petitioner's claim for allotment of an additional site, adjacent to the site allotted, by letter Annexure-C by itself and nothing more cannot attract the Doctrine of Promissory estoppel. The mere promise to consider the petitioner's claim for allotment of an additional site, adjacent to the site allotted, by letter Annexure-C by itself and nothing more cannot attract the Doctrine of Promissory estoppel. ( 4 ) WHAT essentially arises for consideration is whether a mandamus could be issued for the mere asking the answer to which lies on the following principles : "writ of mandamus is not a writ of right but is awarded only in the exercise of sound judicial discretion and to compel performance of act which in equity and good conscience ought to be performed, and granting of writ does not follow of necessity the showing of legal right. Mandamus it is said designed to remedy a wrong, not to promote one, and where the right of the petitioner is at all confused or in doubt, where it would work injustice and where it would be requiring a person to do what the law forbids him to do, the Court will not issue - where it would not promote substantial justice or to promote manifest injustice. Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ to be issued only where : (a) there is a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (b) there is an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (c) the lack of any other adequate remedy and (d) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court; thus before one suffering a legal grievance, can ask for mandamus, must establish a legal right, a judicial enforceable right as well as legally protected right. This is precisely the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of mani Subrat Jain etc. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 276 . ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the principles enunciated and declared by the apex Court and applying the same to the admitted facts of this case, there can be no doubt, in my mind, that the petitioner has not shown a legal right or contra obligation on the part of the respondent to even respond to the representations for grant of allotment of additional site, adjacent to the site already allotted to the petitioner. In the circumstances, I find no merit in this petition and is accordingly rejected. Petitions dismissed.