JUDGMENT : Debasish Kar Gupta, J. Let affidavit-of-service be kept on record. 2. This writ application is filed by the petitioners assailing the decision making process in dealing with the matter of awarding contract for collection of car parking from the fee car parking stretches with location Kolkata Municipal Corporation area for the year 2014-15. 3. According to the petitioners, they participated on the basis of short notice inviting tender dated February 24, 2014 under 'B' category. According to the petitioners, they were the highest bidder under lot Nos. 4(5). B(6; and B(7). But they were not favoured with awarding of above contracts. It is also the case of the petitioners that though they were entitled to participate in the above tender process under 'A' category they had chosen to participate in respect of lot Nos. 4(5), B(6) and B(7) considering their financial ability. According to the petitioners, once the tender documents and earnest money had been received by the respondent-Corporation they were under obligation to consider their application instead of rejecting the same on the ground that their application for participating in the bid under 'B' category was not permissible. 4. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Alok Kumar Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Kolkata Municipality Corporation, that in accordance with eligibility clause 1(1.6) of the short notice inviting tender for the "Fee Car Parking Stretches" the petitioners were not entitled to participate in respect of 'A' category. Their application for participating under B' category was not permissible. Therefore the decision taken by the respondent-Corporation for non-consideration of the application of the petitioners was legally valid. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the in accordance with the provisions of clause 1(1.6) of the short notice inviting tender under reference admittedly the petitioners were not eligible to participate in the auction under 'B' category. The above provision is quoted below: "1.6 Experience clauses as stated in clause No.5, below for the participating the tender to be followed Strictly. The above provision is quoted below: "1.6 Experience clauses as stated in clause No.5, below for the participating the tender to be followed Strictly. Establishments/firms/Co-operative/KMC Licencee/Company/Agency/ NGOs- which falls under a single category i.e. A,B,C,D and Night categories can participate in any lots within such category, (for example a licensee say "X" which falls under falls under category A cannot participate in B,C,D. But he can participate/bid for lot in one or multiple lots within "A" category. For each Lot separate envelope/ application has to be made. For multiple application the xerox copy of the affidavit will be accepted. Application for other category/ies will be rejected.) Also note that in future no stretches from the lots can be surrendered. If any licensee wants to surrender then the whole has to be surrendered." 6. In view of the above condition, the petitioners were not entitled to participate in any bid in respect of lot No. B. 7. Considering the admitted facts and circumstances that the petitioners dropped their tender document in a box earmarked for category, there was no role to play on the part of the respondent-Corporation to accept their application. After scrutiny though earnest money was received from the petitioners there is no doubt or dispute that the same was refundable in case of unsuccessful bidders. 8. It is the settled principles of law that the basis of the doctrine is I that where any party has by his word or conduct made to the other party an I unequivocal promise or representation by word or conduct, which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing as well as intending that the representation, assurance or the promise would be acted upon by the other party to it has been made and has in fact been so acted upon by the other party, the promise, assurance or representation should be winding on the party making it and that party should not be permitted to go back upon it. Reference may be made to the decision of The Union of India v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies, reported in AIR 1968 SC 718 and the relevant portions of the above decision are quoted below: "(16)....................We cannot therefore accept the plea that the Textile Commissioner is the sole judge of the quantum of import licence to be granted to an exporter, and that the Courts are powerless to grant relief, if the promised import licence is not given to an exporter' who has acted to his prejudice relying upon the representation. To concede to the Departmental authorities that power would be to strike at the very root of the rule of law." 9. The above proposition of law has been repeated and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again. Reference may be made to the decision of Kasinka Trading v. Union of India reported in (1995) 1 SCC 274 and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below: "11. The doctrine of promissory estoppel or equitable estopped is well established in the administrative law of the country. To put it simply, the doctrine represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice. The basis of the doctrine is that where any party has by his word or conduct made to the other party an unequivocal promise or representation by word or conduct, which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing as well as intending that the representation, assurance or the promise would be acted upon by the other party to whom it has been made and has in fact been so acted upon by the other party, the promise, assurance or representation should be binding on the party making it and that party should be she permitted to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings, which have taken place or are intended to take place between the parties." 10. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that there is no scope of granting any relief to the petitioner applying doctrine of promissory estoppel in the light of the settled principles of law in this regard in view of the admitted fact that there was no promise on the part of the respondent authority or that the changed his position to his prejudice on the bass of such promise. 11. This writ application stands dismissed. 12. There will be, however, no order as to costs. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, subject to compliance with all necessary formalities. Application is dismissed.