Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J. ( Per Anil Kumar, J.) Heard Sri Rakesh Mishra, Sri V.K. Tripathi, Sri Satish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and Sri Sanjay Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite parties and perused the record. 2. As the point involved in the present writ petitions, are similar and identical in nature ,so with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present today, they are being heard and disposed of by a common judgment. 3. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that in the year 1994, an advertisement was issued on behalf of Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Sultanpur ( hereinafter referred to as 'Parishad') inviting applications for allotment of shops in the Complex which was proposed to be built by the Parishad at Kurwar Road, Tehsil Boundary market of the Parishad, Sutanpur. In response to the same, petitioners submitted their applications for allotment of shops in the complex in question. 4. Subsequently, on behalf of the Chairman of the Parishad, it was informed to the petitioners that for allotment of shops in the proposed complex, they are required to deposit requisite premium and complete necessary formalities. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in pursuance of the said facts, petitioners after completing the formalities for allotment of shops in the proposed complex, deposited the amount towards premium for allotment of the same., the details of which are as under:- Sl.No. Petitioner's name Shop No. Amount deposited 1. Anil Kumar Jaiswal 14 Rs.3500+1500 2. Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal 13 Rs. 3500+1500 3. Mansoor Ahmad shop on the Rs. 2,000 in addition to said first floor deposit he has also deposited over shop Rs. 2000/- for removing the nos.9 & 10 electric wire as per direction issued by Executive Engineer of the Prishad. 4. Nasreen Bano 5 & 6 Rs.5000+25000+15000+ 30,000/- 5. Mohd Illyas idrisi shop on the first floor over shop Rs.4000/- no. 11,12 & 13 6. 2,000 in addition to said first floor deposit he has also deposited over shop Rs. 2000/- for removing the nos.9 & 10 electric wire as per direction issued by Executive Engineer of the Prishad. 4. Nasreen Bano 5 & 6 Rs.5000+25000+15000+ 30,000/- 5. Mohd Illyas idrisi shop on the first floor over shop Rs.4000/- no. 11,12 & 13 6. On behalf of the petitioners, it is further submitted that due to some reasons, the proposed construction of the shops could not be carried out, but in the first half of the year 2011, the construction of the complex in question again started as a result of which the petitioners contacted the Executive Officer of the Parishad to ask him about what remaining amount and formalities are required to be complied with for the purpose of executing the agreement for allotment of shops and in order to take possession of the shops in question in respect to which they have deposited the amount in the year 1994. However, no heed has been paid, further they came to know that the authorities of the Parishad are proceeding to allot the shops in question to other applicants, hence for redressal of their grievance they approached this Court by filing present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Sri Sanjay Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Parishad has given an undertaking in the matter in question that the shops which are subject matter of dispute shall not be allotted to any other applicants during the pendency of the present writ petitions. 8. Thereafter, counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the official respondents/Parishad thereby taking the stand that the proposed shops which have been allotted to the petitioners in the complex by the then Chairman/Executive Officer of the Parishad are not as per the procedure provided for the said purpose, so by means of a decision taken by the Chairman of the Parishad, the same has been cancelled and further a decision was taken that an advertisement shall be issued for fresh allotment of the shops in question. Subsequently in response to the same, the advertisements were published in Daily Newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on 4.11.2008 and 7.6.2011. 9. Subsequently in response to the same, the advertisements were published in Daily Newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on 4.11.2008 and 7.6.2011. 9. Accordingly, it is submitted on behalf of the Parishad that as the allotment of the shops in favour of the petitioners were not in accordance with the procedure provided for the said purpose, so they have no right to get the shops in question, hence the present writ petitions filed by the petitioners, are liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 11. The undisputed position which emerge out from the facts are that in the year 1994 the Parishad had taken a decision to construct the shops in the Complex and in response to the same, petitioners have submitted their applications and they were allotted shops against which they have deposited the amounts as stated above, but the construction of the said complex did not start at that relevant point of time, subsequently the construction started in the year 2011, as a result of which an advertisement was issued for allotment of shops in question and as per the case of the petitioners, they were not considered for allotment of the shops in the said complex. Although the petitioners have initially deposited certain amounts, as asked by the authorities of the Parishad, in lieu of the allotment of the shops in the said complex in their favour and when the complex came into existence (after construction), shops were not allotted to them. 12. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties no. 2 and 3, a document has been annexed as CA-1 containing the resolution of meeting of Parishad dated 10.1.2001 headed by the then Chairman of the Parishad Sri Syed Rehman alias Manu Bhai alongwith 28 members and the agenda/item no.(3) of the same is as under:- @ Hindi @ 13. Thus, it is clearly established that the shops in question have been allotted in the favour of the petitioners by the authorities of the Parishad in the year 1994 coupled with the facts that the authorities of the Parishad have only taken a stand in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties no. 2 and 3 that the said allotment in favour of the petitioners were not as per procedure. 2 and 3 that the said allotment in favour of the petitioners were not as per procedure. However, nothing has been brought either by way of pleadings or by way of arguments that why the said allotments are invalid one. 14. In view of the said facts, the action on the part of respondents no. 2/3 to cancel the allotment of the shops in favour of petitioners without providing any opportunity of hearing to them is an action which is wholly illegal and arbitrary in nature as well as violative of principles of natural justice, as Nagar Palika Parishad is an instrumentality of the State and falls within the ambit and scope of definition of State as given under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, so it should not act in an arbitrary manner as held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Noida Enterprises Association Vs. Noida and others (2011 ) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 508 wherein it has held as under:- " The State or the public authority which holds the property for the public or which has been assigned the duty of grant of largesse, etc, acts as a trustee and, therefore, has to act fairly and reasonably. Every holder of a public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of the State or public body is ultimately accountable to the people in whom the sovereignty vests . As such, all powers so vested in him are meant to be exercised for public good and promoting the public interest. Every holder of a public office is a trustee. 15. State actions are required to be non-arbitrary and justified on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. Action of the State or its instrumentality must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. Functioning of a " democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of the arbitrariness and discrimination. 16. The public trust doctrine is a part of the law of the land. The doctrine has grown from Article 21 of the Constitution . In essence, the action/order of the State or State instrumentality would stand vitiated if it lacks bona fides, as it would only be a case of colourable exercise of power . The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. [ vide Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. In essence, the action/order of the State or State instrumentality would stand vitiated if it lacks bona fides, as it would only be a case of colourable exercise of power . The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. [ vide Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bangal (1975) 1 SCC 70 , Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India, ( 1979) 3 SCC 489, Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation ( 1988) 1 SCC 166, Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of U.P., (1991) 1 SCC 212 and M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu (1999) 6 SCC 464 ]" 17. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that they are ready to deposit the amount at the prevailing market rate/price at the rate on which the other shops in the complex have been allotted to other allottees by Nagar Palika Parishad, Sultanpur. 18. For the foregoing reasons, we dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to the petitioners to deposit the amount at the prevailing market rates/price at the rate on which the other shops in the complex have been allotted to other allottees, excluding the amount already deposited by them, within a period of four weeks from today with the Nagar Palika Parishad, Sultanpur . If the same is done within the stipulated time, the opposite party no.3 shall take necessary steps for completing the formalities to hand over the possession of the shops in question to the petitioners, expeditiously. _