JUDGMENT : T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. These writ petitions involving the same questions of facts and law praying for similar reliefs are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment and order. 2. The Shillong Municipal Board (for short 'SMB') got a Project from the Govt. of India in Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation. To commence the construction, the old structures are to be demolished and for that purpose, the writ petitioners are to be shifted from those premises temporarily. This is the third round of litigation for the same prayer involving the said project i.e. for the construction of the new building or new shops by demolishing the old structures at Polo Bazar Municipal Market. Because of litigations, it appears that the project cannot be implemented. 3. The project is for the interest of public and certain developments are required in the Polo Bazar. The respondents-SMB as directed by this Court, had filed the affidavit dated 11.04.2014 to bring on record the documents and lists of shop owners, who had shifted to the temporary market at Polo Bazar. Because of continuing disturbance from the side of shop owners in the Polo Municipal Market, the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Urban Affairs Department, Shillong under his letter dated 07.06.2013 sought for advice from the Director, Urban Affairs, Meghalaya, Shillong as to whether the project for development of Polo Bazar be shifted to the site identified at New Shillong Township and also the construction of market at Polo is to be examined as and when the court cases are settled. From the said letter, it appears that the project for the larger interest of public for development of Polo Bazar cannot be implemented and the Govt. is compelled to take a decision to the extent of shifting the project to a place at New Shillong Township and the construction of market at Polo may be examined as and when the court cases are settled. 4. This Court is of the considered view that in such circumstances, there may not be any development in Polo Bazar and the development in Polo Bazar is a must in the interest of public. There should be no unwanted sympathy for any individual, at cost of the project for the larger interest of the people. However, the Govt. 4. This Court is of the considered view that in such circumstances, there may not be any development in Polo Bazar and the development in Polo Bazar is a must in the interest of public. There should be no unwanted sympathy for any individual, at cost of the project for the larger interest of the people. However, the Govt. should not throw out the people from the project area in an arbitrary manner. The statement i.e. Annexures-5A, 5B and 5C to the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents-SMB dated 11.04.2014 shows the names of the shop owners, who had already shifted to the temporary market. For easy reference, the statements at Annexure-5A, 5B and 5C of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents-SMB are reproduced below:- 5. On bare perusal of the said statement, it is clear that many of the writ petitioners had already shifted to the temporary market. However, this fact is disputed by Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. This Court is of the considered view that policy decision regarding development of Polo Bazar is purely within the realm of the Govt. The Court cannot sit in appeal on the policy decision of the Govt. and however, this Court exercised the power of judicial review, which is the basic feature of the Constitution of India, over the policy decision of the Govt. only when the policy decision is in clear violation of rules and laws. In the present case, this Court is of the considered view that there is no clear violation of rules and laws in taking the policy decision by the Govt. for developing the Polo Bazar. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that any interference to the said policy decision of the Govt. is not called for. 6. In the result, these writ petitions are not maintainable. 7. The respondents-SMB have to verify in the presence of the persons or shop owners, whose names mentioned in the said statements quoted above, if they had shifted to the temporary market at Polo Bazar. 8. Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners also submits at the Bar that the petitioners would convene a meeting on 30.04.2014, for sorting out a proposal regarding the development of Polo Bazar. The respondents-SMB may look into the proposal, if sent by the writ petitioners. 8. Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners also submits at the Bar that the petitioners would convene a meeting on 30.04.2014, for sorting out a proposal regarding the development of Polo Bazar. The respondents-SMB may look into the proposal, if sent by the writ petitioners. It is also made clear that the project should not be stalled because of the objections from the side of the petitioners that some inconveniences may cause to them. 9. Taking into consideration of the submission of Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, till the writ petitioners submit their proposal on Wednesday (30.04.2014), the respondents-SMB, may not take up the demolition process. 10. With the above observations and directions, these writ petitions are disposed of.