JUDGMENT : - Sureshwar Thakur, J. The petitioner, is, a licenced commission agent engaged in the sale and purchase of agricultural produce. In the aforesaid capacity he is doing work at Theog. For carrying out his evocation as a commission agent, the petitioner submitted an application through registered post to respondent No.2 for allotting to him shop/market yard. He also furnished/tendered security in the sum of Rs.5000/-, to, the second respondent for shop/market yard being allotted in his favour by the second respondent. The petitioner communicated to the second respondent, on 18.06.1996 that through he has furnished security to it, in the sum of Rs.5000/- for the allotment of a shop/market yard, in, the proposed construction of Vegetable and Fruit Market (Subji Mandi) at Parala in Tehsil Theog. However, the said communication addressed by the petitioner to the second respondent for the purpose aforesaid remained un-responded to. On 29.1.2014, the petitioner through newspaper cuttings acquired knowledge of construction of two storeys, of the Vegetable and Fruit Market, Parala (Phase-1) being almost complete. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a representation through registered post for allotment of one shop to him, by the second respondent. However, till date no response has been received by the petitioner, therefore, he has moved this Court claiming the relief that the second respondent be directed to allot the shop/auction yard to the petitioner, in, the Vegetable and Fruit Market (Subji Mandi) at, Parala in Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. 2. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner. They in their reply submitted that there is no force or merit in the claim of the petitioner for allotment of shop/market yard in the Vegetable and Fruit Market (Subji Mandi) at Parala (Phase-I) in Tehsil Theog, District Mandi, H.P., constructed by the second respondent. 3. It is manifest on a scanning of the averments as elucidated by the petitioner in his writ petition that at the stage when he applied for allotment of space/shop/market yard, in, the proposed Vegetable and Fruit Market (Subji Mandi), at, Parala, Phase-I, at that stage, the construction of the Vegetable and Fruit Yard was under contemplation, as such, it was neither under way nor in any sense can be construed to be complete. The counsel for the petitioner cannot, though, he has concerted that his tendering of Rs.5000/- to the second respondent, as, security vide receipt dated 28.6.1996, Annexure P-4 and, its, acceptance by respondent No.2, displays, a, promise on the part of the second respondent to, on completion of the construction of the Vegetable and Fruit Market (Subji Mandi) at Parala, allot a shop/market yard, to the petitioner. He, though, also further contends, that, when the respondents omitted to vindicate their assurance and honour their promise, he, has an inherent legitimate right to interdict the respondents against their resiling from their commitment and promise. As a concomitant, hence, he claims for the issuance of a mandamus, directing the respondents to allot a shop/market yard to the petitioner, on, completion of the construction of the Vegetable and Fruit Market (Subji Mandi) at Parala. 4. The above argument is highly fanciful. It is not well grooved in the facts evident or material existing on the file of this case. The Himachal Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Committees Bye-Laws-2007 have been notified by the respondents and are comprised in Annexure R-2 annexed to the reply filed by the respondents. The mode and manner for the allotment of shops/godowns/booths on lease bases, is, enunciated in Bye-Law 62, which is extracted herein below: “….62. Allotment of Shops/Godowns/booths on lease basis.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, Rules and Bye-laws, a committee with the previous approval of the Managing Director of the Board shall have the power to let or lease either by negotiations or by public auction any shop/godown/booth/or any other infrastructure constructed, raised or built in a Principal Market/sub-market yard/or anywhere else in the market area.” A reading thereto, forcefully communicates the fact that only a committee constituted with the prior approval of the Managing Director of the Board is vested with the power to let or lease either by negotiations or by public auction any allotable space raised or built in Principal Market/Sub-market yard or anywhere else in the market yard. On the anvil of the aforesaid bye-laws , the conclusion which surges forth, is, that the claim of the petitioner for allotment of space/shop/market yard, in, the Vegetable and Fruit Market (Subji Mandi) at Parala in Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. is unvindicable for the reason (a) at the stage of his having tendered Rs.5000/- as security along with his application for allotment of space/market yard in the aforesaid Vegetable and Fruit Market (Subji Mandi) at Parala in Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. , its construction was not underway, rather was under contemplation, besides when there was, no, advertisement published in any newspaper calling upon the aspirants/desirous persons to participate in the legally enjoined process for the allotment of shop/market yard, in, the premises aforesaid. Hence, when in face thereof, only would the application of the petitioner for the allotment of the shop/market yard, in, the premises aforesaid accompanied by security fees would have been construable to have invested in him a tentative legitimate unrenegable expectation, subject to further compliance by the respondents with the mandate of the bye-law 62, to get a shop/auction yard allotted on lease in his favour. Obviously, when there is, no, material on record evidencing the fact of the respondents having published an advertisement in the newspaper calling upon the desirous person to submit application accompanied by security, in, the sum as furnished by the petitioner, for, allotment of the space, in, the premises aforesaid, the unilateral act, of, the petitioner in his having applied for allotment of shop/auction yard in the built up premises at Parla, along with which his having tendered/furnished as security a sum of Rs.5000/-, to the respondents, cannot fasten/colour the said unilateral act of the petitioner with the trait, of it, hence, conveying to the petitioner or any aspirant/desirous person a promise or representation by the respondents, that, hence, on completion of the Vegetable and Fruit Market (Subji Mandi) at Parala in Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, any built up space therein would be allotted to him/them. More so, when even otherwise, at that stage, it is also not evident that there was a committee constituted, with the prior approval of the Managing Director of the Board, to, receive applications/offers for the allotment of the space/market yard/booth on lease in the Vegetable and Fruit Market (Subji Mandi) at Parala, when in the face of constitution of an apposite committee then, any acceptance by such a committee of Rs. 5000/- tendered as security by the petitioner may have assumed the colour of a tenable representation or assurance to the petitioner. In aftermath its non-constitution cannot color the unilateral act of the petitioner with the trait of it carrying the necessary element of a promise or representation having been on its acceptance by the respondents meted out to the petitioner; (b) with there being a categorical mandate, in, the bye laws formulated by the respondents comprised, in, Annexure R-2, of any space or built up space of any class/type being allotable by negotiation or public action, to the desirous persons or aspirants, only by a committee constituted with the prior approval of the Managing Director of the Board. Consequently, when there is also no material on record portraying the fact of a committee with the prior approval of the Managing Director having come to be constituted, as also, when it is not manifest, on, an incisive discernment of the record that such a validly constituted committee having the necessary prior approval, to, seek offers for allotment of space/built up space, had either negotiated with the petitioner/aspirant or had resorted, to, the ordained mode of allotment of any space/built up area in the premises raised by the respondents, by, public auction or negotiation. Therefore, the absence of the above material constrains, this, Court to infer that there was, no, actionable and tenable representation or promise meted out by the respondents to the petitioner, so, as, to goad this Court , to, on their resiling interdict the respondents from doing so. Therefore, the absence of the above material constrains, this, Court to infer that there was, no, actionable and tenable representation or promise meted out by the respondents to the petitioner, so, as, to goad this Court , to, on their resiling interdict the respondents from doing so. In sequel when the process for allotment of any space in the built up Vegetable and Fruit Market (Subji Mandi) at Parala, is at a inchoate stage, no capital or leverage can be drawn by the petitioner, on, the strength of his having furnished/tendered a sum of Rs.5000/- security to the respondents along with his application for allotment of space/market yard in the Vegetable and Fruit Market (Subji Mandi) at Parala, constructed by the respondents, as, the said act does not either comprise any promise or any representation by the respondents to the petitioner, to, allot a space as claimed by the petitioner, rather when neither the procedure contemplated or envisaged in the bye laws comprised in Annexure R-2 for allotment of the space in the Vegetable and Fruit Market (Subji Mandi) at Parala, has been proved to be complied with, the aforesaid unilateral act of the petitioner does not carry any weight nor does it empower him to anchor a submission that it comprises a representation/promise by the respondents to him on the strength whereby he can claim a right of allotment. The said representation/promise could may arisen only in face of a prior compliance by the respondents, of the envisaged procedure contemplated in the bye laws and which compliance having remained un-begotten, hence, cannot encumber the respondents to proceed to allot any premises to the petitioner. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition as filed by the petitioner is wholly premature and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, it shall be open to the respondents to, within the ambit of bye laws comprised in Annexure R-2, to allot any space to the petitioner in the Vegetable and Fruit Market (Subji Mandi) at Parala in Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P., as and when claimed by the petitioner, in accordance with law. 6. The pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.