Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- 1. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 13.5.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby he has dismissed appellant’s WP(C) No. 3514/2010. 2. The appellant was originally having the trade license of stationary and was carrying on the business of selling stationary in Fancy Bazar Market. This Bazar was gutted by fire in the year 1989 and was reconstructed. The question arose which trader be allotted which shop in the newly constructed Fancy bazaar Market. To resolve this, the Standing Assessment, Market & Trade Committee of Guwahati Municipal Corporation notified the criterion on 14.10.2014 for allotment of shops. According to Resolution No. 4, first floor shops were to be allotted for stationary and related business; whereas shops in the ground floor were to be exclusively allotted for those in the business of grocery, hardware and perishable commodities. Since the father of appellant was in the stationary business, he was entitled for allotment of shops only in the first floor. But, because old Fancy Bazar Market was not a multistoried building and all shop owners had their business in the ground floor, the Guwahati Municipal Corporation, through order dated 12.2.2005, allotted two shops to appellant’s father in the ground floor and 3rd shop in the first floor, in lieu of his three shops, which were in the gutted market. 3. Aggrieved with the allotment of one shop in the first floor, the appellant filed WP(C) No. 3514/ 2010 on the plea that since he is in business of perishable items like potato, onion etc. he was entitled for the three shops in the ground floor. The learned Single Judge, however, took note of the fact that the market was gutted by fire in the year 1989 and till the reconstruction of new market in the year 2004, appellant had trade license for stationary. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that all the shops in the newly constructed market had been allotted to different traders and not one shop left vacant. On these circumstances, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has held that appellant was not entitled for all these three shops in the ground floor. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. Admittedly, not one shop in the market is left vacant. On these circumstances, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has held that appellant was not entitled for all these three shops in the ground floor. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. Admittedly, not one shop in the market is left vacant. The third shop, which was allotted to the appellant in the first floor, was relinquished by him. Even, that shop has been allotted to a third person. Also, no shop earmarked for the appellant has been allotted to any person. Appellant’s father was having the trade license of stationary till 19.12.2004 and shops were constructed prior to that date. It was only after the appellant changed his trade, started insisting for allotment of all the three shops in the ground floor. We are of the considered view that the Guwahati Municipal Corporation has been generous in allotting appellant two shops in the ground floor. The insistence of appellant for allotment of all the three shops in the ground floor and that too, when he was earlier in the trade of stationary, is wholly unreasonable. We find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The appeal is dismissed.