JUDGMENT ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking following reliefs: (a) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the relevant records from the respondents. (b) That the respondents No. 2 and 3 be commanded to allot the shops constructed over the 7500 sq. ft. area in the Kothi Compound Vikas Pariyojna to members of the petitioner Samiti and its office as per promise in Annexure P/3 and P/6 on concessional rates as has been done vide Annexure P/11 and P/12 in the matter of Ganga Vatika and Dhobia Tanki complexes at Rewa itself. (c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be awarded by issuance of appropriate writ/direction/ order/command, and cost of the petition be awarded. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to the averments made in the memorandum of petition, the petitioner Thela Gumti Footpath Vyapari Seva Samiti, Rewa (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") is a Society registered under the M. P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. Copy of the registration has been filed as Annexure P-1. There are as many as 76 members of the Society and the list of the members is Annexure P-2. ACCORDING to the petitioner, these members were carrying on the small business of tea-stall, cycle repairing shop etc. by keeping the Gumti in the Compound, namely, Kothi Compound. ACCORDING to the petitioner-Society, the, Respondents 1 and 2 proposed a development plan in the name and style "Kothi Compound Vikas Pariyojna Rewa" (hereinafter referred to as "the Project") and in order to give positive attitude to this Project the members of the petitioner-Society were removed from the site. The foundation ceremony of the said Project was held on 15th November, 2002. ACCORDING to the petitioner, the function was organised and the then Chief Minister was the Chief Guest of the function and the then Chairman of the Vidhansabha presided over the function. The leaflet was also distributed at the time of said ceremony, according to which the expenditure of Rs. 14.00 Crores in different development programme of the said Project was to be made over 20 Acres of the land. It was proposed that there will be four-storeyed commercial and administrative Complex which will accommodate 23 principal District offices and other offices under one roof. 14.00 Crores in different development programme of the said Project was to be made over 20 Acres of the land. It was proposed that there will be four-storeyed commercial and administrative Complex which will accommodate 23 principal District offices and other offices under one roof. A suitable place for parking and entertainment park etc. was also kept reserved. ACCORDING to the petitioner-Society, in the said leaflet it has been stated that in the commercial premises the small and pavement traders shall be accommodated in the area of 7500 square feet and a Chaupati will be developed. Copy of the leaflet mentioning the details of the project has been filed as Annexure P-3 and the layout plan of the Project is Annexure P-4. According to the petitioner-Society, shops which were proposed to be allotted to displace 76 members of the petitioner-Society has been delineated in the area surrounded by red ink in the Annexure P-4. The invitation card of the foundation stone laying ceremony is Annexure P-5. Further it has been pleaded in the petition that Lokarpan Ceremony of the Kothi Compound of the Project was held on 16-9-2003 (Annexure P-6) and in this document also it has been mentioned that three new squares have been developed and on concessional rates the shops will be allotted to the pavement traders. ( 3. ) THE office bearers of the Society contacted respondents repeatedly and requested them to provide newly constructed shops to the members of the Society but they refused to accede the demand and told that they are shortly going to auction these shops. Copies of the representations are Annexure P-7 and P-8. THE representation of MLA recommending to allot the shops to the members of the Society are Annexures P-9 and P-10. In the representation (Annexure P-10) it has also been submitted that the auction of the shops may not take place and they should be allotted to the members of the petitioner's Society only. ( 4. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the principle of promissory estoppel is applicable in the case and the respondents are duty bound and oblige to allot the shops to the 76 members of the petitioner's Society. Hence, this petition has been filed. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Collector (respondents 1 and 2) have filed their return and have denied the averments made in the petition. Hence, this petition has been filed. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Collector (respondents 1 and 2) have filed their return and have denied the averments made in the petition. In para-4 of the return it has been pleaded that the Project was prepared for construction of multi-storeyed Complex under the Project. Several pavement dwellers/squatters were carrying on their business on handcart/temporary sheds by the side of the Compound wall. On account of commencement of the construction work of the said Project, the pavement dwellers/squatters who were carrying on their business, on their own they shifted their business to some other suitable place. According to the respondents, no person was forcibly dispossessed or displaced from the said place. Further it has been pleaded in para 5 of the return that since the members of the Society were not forcibly dispossessed by the respondents, question of promising them for allotment of shops on concessional terms does not arise. Further it has been pleaded that the pamphlets contained in Annexure P-3 and P-5 were never published nor circulated by the respondents and as such the principle of promissory estoppel is not applicable on the respondents. ( 5. ) IN para-7 of the return it has been pleaded that question in regard to allotment of shops to the pavement dwellers/squatters on concessional rate was also raised on the floor of the State Assembly. The respondent No. 2 vide his memo informed that no promise was made to any of the pavement dweller for allotment of shops on concessional rates. According to the respondents, the shops which have been constructed under the said Project are proposed to be allotted by open auction. A copy of the Collector, Rewa dated 1 -7-2004 is filed as Annexure R-1. Hence, it has been prayed that this petition be dismissed. ( 6. ) THE petitioner has filed a rejoinder and has contended therein that pamphlet (Annexure P-3) and invitation card (Annexure P-5) were duly published by respondents 2 and 3 only and the averments made by Collector in Annexure R-1 to the Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, Bhopal is an incorrect information and the same has been sent in order to frustrate the right of members of the Society. Along with the rejoinder a copy of the Kothi Compound Development Project (which was taken up under the Re-densification Scheme of the State Government) has been filed as Annexure P-19 which consists of detailed plan with regard to the construction. According to the petitioner, if the said document is considered in proper perspective it would reveal that Item No. 5 at page 3, the construction of small shops in the area 750 square feet has been shown for rehabilitation of the Gumti holders. On page No. 6 of this document the construction of shops for encroachers was to be taken at the cost of Rs. 27.75 Lacs and at page 7 the photograph of clearing site has been shown. THE document (Annexure P-19) shows that the Project Committee consists of Commissioner as its Chairman, the Collector, Deputy Commissioner, M. P. Housing Board and Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Rewa its members. THE Executive Committee consisted of Collector, Rewa as Chairman and the Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rewa and Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Rewa its members. Thus, the stand taken by the respondents in the return is not correct and the respondents are bound to provide the shops to the members of the Society on the principle of promissory estoppel. While addressing the petition, Shri Imtiyaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same grounds which are averred in the petition and rejoinder and submitted that the respondents are estopped for not providing the shops in the said Complex to the members of the Society. According to learned counsel, if the documents Annexure P-3 and P-5 are taken into account, one can say that the principles of promissory estoppel is applicable against the respondents and they are bound to allot the newly constructed shops on concessional basis to the members of the Society. Hence, it has been prayed that this petition be allowed. ( 7. ) ON the other hand, Shri Kapil Patwardhan, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that on bare perusal of pamphlet (Annexure P-3) and invitation card of the ceremony (Annexure P-5) it cannot be said that any promise was made by the respondents 1 and 2 to provide the shops on concessional basis to the members of the Society and therefore, the question of promissory estoppel does not arise in the present case. Learned Panel Lawyer has also placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Nezone Law House, Assam, AIR 2008 SC 2045 . ( 8. ) SHRI Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has also opposed the prayer of petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 9. ) THE entire case rests upon the pivot whether there is any promissory estoppel in the present case or not. THE documents which are placed reliance by petitioner for invoking this principle are Annexures P-3 and P-5. Before X-raying these documents and whether any promissory estoppel has been carved out from these documents or not, I would like to state that the estoppel should always be clear, unambiguous and certain. THE promise should be definite and beyond any doubt. THE principle of estoppel can only arise from a clear definite statement and a statement in order to found an estoppel, should be clear and unambiguous; not necessarily susceptible of only one interpretation, but such as will reasonably be understood in the senses contended for and for this purpose the entire material must be looked upon. Lord Bowen LJ in Low vs. Bouverie, (1891) 3 Ch. D. 82 when deciding against the estoppel pleaded; "Now an estoppel that is to say the language upon which an estoppel if founded, must be precise and unambiguous. That does not necessarily mean that the language must be such that it cannot possibly be open to different constructions, but that it must be such as will reasonably understood in a particular sense by the person to whom it is addressed". In M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. THE State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1979 SC 621 while dealing with the principles of Promissory Estoppel the Apex Court has held as under :- "THE law may, therefore, now be taken to be settled as a result of this decision, that where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Govt. would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Govt. would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Govt. at the instance of the promisee, nothwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Art. 299 of the Constitution." ( 10. ) ON bare perusal of the pamphlet (Annexure P-3) and invitation card (Annexure P-5) it is gathered that only programme to lay foundation stone has been mentioned further mentioning that in the programme the Chief Minister will be the Chief Guest while the Chairman of Vidhansabha would be the President of that function apart from some other dignitaries who will remain present in the said function. This pamphlet has been distributed by whom and further whatever has been described in this pamphlet is the statement of respondents 1 and 2, is not at all clear from this document. Similar is the position of Annexure P-5 which is the invitation card. I do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that pamphlet (Annexure P-3) and invitation card (Annexure P-5) have triggered the principle of promissory estoppel in motion. The respondents 1 and 2 are not at all bound whatever has been written in the pamphlet (Annexure P-3). Shri Kapil Patwardhan, learned Panel Lawyer has rightly placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Nezone Law House (supra) wherein (para-17) the Supreme Court has held as under :- "In order to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel clear, sound and positive foundation must be laid in the petition itself by the party invoking the doctrine and bald expressions without any supporting material to the effect that the doctrine is attracted because the party invoking the doctrine has altered its position relying on the assurance of the Government would not be sufficient to press into aid the doctrine. The Courts are bound to consider all aspects including the results sought to be achieved and the public good at large, because while considering the applicability of the doctrine, the Courts have to do equity and the fundamental principles of equity must forever be present in the mind of the Court." Merely because in the Project, Kiosks have been constructed would not mean that the members of the petitioner's Society are having any right to get them allotted in their favour on concessional rates because the principle of promissory estoppel is not applicable in the present case. Hence, according to me, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief they have claimed. ( 11. ) BEFORE parting with the matter, I would like to observe that the members of the Society are poor vendors and handcart pullers. According to the petitioner, they were running their small business just like Pan shop, cycle repairing shop, tea-stall, etc etc. by putting Gumtis on the site where the huge complex has been constructed. On the other hand, the stand of respondents 1 and 2 in the return is that, indeed, they are hawkers carrying on business on the handcarts and they used to keep their goods which are to be sold on the next date in a shed which was being locked by them in the compound. Be that as it may, indeed they are the citizens of this country and the State is under the pious obligation as well as are constitutionally bound to rehabilitate them as they were carrying on their business in the said compound before this construction of the Complex and therefore, if the Kiosks in the said Complex which have been newly constructed, are not allotted to these vendors they may be provided suitable alternative place where they can earn their livelihood instead of throwing them on the streets. Indeed, this is the requirement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which the State and its functionaries are obliged to provide to the members of the petitioner's Society who are the citizens of this country. ( 12. ) WITH the aforesaid observations, this petition is dismissed with no orders as to cost. Petition dismissed.