Abhinava Upadhya, J.;— Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. Heard Sri K.K.Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 2.1.2013 passed by respondent no.4 directing the petitioners to vacate the shop in question being Shop Nos. 69 and 70 situated at Leader Road within two days. The order mentions that the construction of the shop nos. 69 and 70 of Leader Road on Sarak Patri which was allotted to the petitioners. It has further been observed in the order that due to shop in question, there is hindrance in the traffic in the ensuing Kumbh Mela where the traffic shall be heavy. It has become necessary to remove the Gomti in public interest. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenging the order contended that the shops were not constructed on the road patri and the rent is being received regularly by the Nagar Nigam. He has referred to the receipt dated 3rd December, 2012, filed as Annexure-14 to the writ petition. Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1538 of 2013 (Raj Kumar Jaiswal and others Vs. State of U.P. & others) dated 10.1.2013 as well as Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 68664 of 2012 (Mohan Lal Vs. State of U.P. & others) dated 25.12.2012 and submitted that this Court did not interfere with the action of the respondents in removing the Gomti at Mahatama Gandhi Marg and Nawab Yusuf Road in Allahabad City. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the shops on Mahatama Gandhi Marg and Nawab Yusuf Road were on the road patri, hence the petitioners' case is distinguishable of the said case and it was not necessary for directing the removal of petitioners' shop. He also submitted that a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 52280 of 2012 (Pankaj Sahu @ Pankaj Kumar Sahu Vs. State of U.P. & others) has considered the question to provide alternative places to those Gomties, which have been demolished. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. State of U.P. & others) has considered the question to provide alternative places to those Gomties, which have been demolished. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. There is no dispute that the Gomties belong to Nagar Nigam which were allotted to the petitioners. The Gomties are situated on the Leader Road, which is also not a matter of dispute. It is for the authorities to assess as to whether for free movement of traffic any Gumti or shop is required to be removed or not. The petitioners' who were allotted the shop have no such indefeasible right to seek a writ of mandamus directing the respodnents not to remove the Gumtis which is hindering the smooth traffic. Cogent reason has been given in the order dated 2.1.2013 for taking a decision to remove the shop. Various orders of this Court have also been noticed and referred to in the order impugned and we are of the view that while passing the order the Nagar Nigam has taken into account relevant consideration and direction for handing over possession does not warrant interference by this Court. However, we are of the view that the petitioners who were the allottee of the shop by the Nagar Nigam are being removed at the instance of the Nagar Nigam, it shall be open for the petitioners to claim rehabilitation or reside the shop any scheme to the rehabilitation of the shopkeepers, who have been evicted due to demolition of the shop, is framed and implemented by the Nagar Nigam. Subject to the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. _____________