JUDGMENT : Debi Prosad Dey, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a direction upon respondent no. 2 and 3 to forthwith accept the instalments in respect of the plots of land as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, which were allotted in favour of the petitioners through lottery and for further direction upon the respondents to deliver possession of such land in favour of the petitioners. 2. All the petitioners belong to economically weaker sections of the society. The Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority gave an advertisement in public newspaper on 26.12.2010 inviting applications from persons belonging to economically weaker section of the society and also from the persons who have lost their land due to acquisition of land for different development project. The plots were sought to be distributed measuring about 0.850 to 0.750 katha at the price of Rs.70,000/- to Rs.75,000/- situated at East Kolkata township and Baishnabghata Patuli. All the petitioners collected booklet from different branches from the Bank of India upon payment of Rs.250/- per booklet and thereafter submitted their respective applications. The specific averment in para 5 of the writ petition is that all the petitioners, in order to acquire a place for permanent residence for themselves, having regard to the price of the land started believing that their dream would come true. In such process of allotment of land by Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority a lottery was held for allotment of such lands on 26th February, 2011 at Jadavpur Stadium. In para 9 of the writ petition the petitioners have given the plot numbers which were allegedly allotted in favour of the petitioners in the said lottery. However, a notification was published by the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority on 26th April, 2012 in the newspaper that the process of allotment of land was cancelled. 3. The petitioners were directed to collect the application money from the respective branches of Bank of India along with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such action of the respondents the petitioners have filed this writ application on the ground that the respondents cannot cancel the process of allotment through lottery whimsically in an arbitrary manner. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such action of the respondents the petitioners have filed this writ application on the ground that the respondents cannot cancel the process of allotment through lottery whimsically in an arbitrary manner. Secondly, the action of the respondents is bad in law since the decision of cancellation of such lottery has been taken by the respondents without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the said action is contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice. Thirdly, the respondents have agreed to allot lands on completion of certain formalities and the petitioners have duly complied with such formalities and they were successful in the lottery held by the respondents. Therefore, the respondents cannot cancel such lottery and such action of the state respondents is contrary to the Principles of Promissory Estoppel. Fourthly, the action of the state respondents does not reveal any cogent reason and accordingly such administrative action devoid of reasons has had no leg to stand upon and ought to be cancelled by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Lastly, the action of the state officials cannot be changed by the change of Government and thereby the decision of the next government is contrary to the Principles of Law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in very many decisions. Respondents no.1, 2 and 3 have jointly filed affidavit in opposition whereby the respondents have denied and disputed the contentions of the petitioners. The specific case of the respondents is that the petitioners have had no cause of action to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the instant writ application is not maintainable since the respondents never violated any legal or fundamental right of the petitioners. Admittedly, pursuant to the advertisement given by the respondents the petitioners submitted their applications for allotment of land and admittedly the lottery was conducted/held on 26th February, 2011 at Jadavpur Stadium. It is vehemently contended that the result of such lottery was never published and no allotment letter was ever issued in favour of the petitioners so that it can be said that such plots of land in terms of paragraph 9 of the writ petition were allotted in favour of the petitioners. It is vehemently contended that the result of such lottery was never published and no allotment letter was ever issued in favour of the petitioners so that it can be said that such plots of land in terms of paragraph 9 of the writ petition were allotted in favour of the petitioners. The further case of the respondents is that mere participation in the process of lottery will not entitle the petitioners to get allotment of the plots of land reserved for economically poor section of the society and land loser. The respondents have further stated that applications were invited by the respondents in terms of the brochure issued by the respondents and such applications were invitation to offer and cannot be construed as offer on the part of the respondents. Moreover, it has been clearly mentioned in the brochure that the advertisement was nothing but an invitation to offer and the respondents reserved the right to allot of or any of the plots, make changes or modifications in terms and conditions of allotment, reject any or all applications without assigning any reasons or outright cancel the scheme under exceptional circumstances, with the approval of the authority. Therefore the contention that the scheme was out rightly rejected by the respondents without assigning any reasons thereof is not correct. It has also been stated that the respondents authority in its 168th board meeting held on 29th March, 2012 decided that the scheme would be cancelled and the money deposited would be refunded to the applicant with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum since the authorities have decided to make another offer by inviting applications afresh. Sufficient reasons have been assigned in cancelling the entire scheme for allotment of lands through lottery to the economically weaker sections of the society in such board meeting and therefore it cannot be said that the scheme has been annulled without assigning any reasons thereof. 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the entire action regarding cancellation of the scheme under reference of the state respondents is bad in law and is in violation of the Principles of the Rule of Natural Justice as well as Promissory Estoppel. The administrative action of the state respondents does not reveal any cogent and valid reason and accordingly such action of the state respondents ought to be cancelled. The administrative action of the state respondents does not reveal any cogent and valid reason and accordingly such action of the state respondents ought to be cancelled. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents cannot cancel such process of allotment of land to economically weaker section of the society whimsically in an arbitrary manner and change of Government does not entitle the officials of the Government to change the policy adopted by the earlier Government. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners further contended that since the petitioners were successful in such lottery their rights may be reserved in case of any future allotment of lands by the respondents. 6. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the state respondents however contended that the petitioners are banking upon the brochure issued by the respondent but without delving into the clauses contained in such brochure. It is submitted that there is specific stipulation in the brochure that the respondents reserved the right of cancelling the entire scheme without assigning any reasons thereof and the applications were invited only as an invitation to offer and by inviting such applications the respondents had not accepted anything in terms of the applications submitted by the petitioners. It is further contended that no legal and fundamental right of the petitioners have been violated by the respondents and the result of the lottery was never published and notified in the gazette so as to accept that the respondents agreed and accepted the claim of the petitioner for allotment of such lands in favour of the petitioners. 7. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently contended that no result of such lottery was published and no allotment letter was ever issued in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that had such letter of allotment been issued or any such result was ever published by the respondents in that event the petitioners would have prayed for invoking the Principles of Promissory Estoppel. That having not been done, the submission regarding invoking of the Principles of Promissory Estoppel cannot be accepted. It is submitted that had such letter of allotment been issued or any such result was ever published by the respondents in that event the petitioners would have prayed for invoking the Principles of Promissory Estoppel. That having not been done, the submission regarding invoking of the Principles of Promissory Estoppel cannot be accepted. It has also been submitted by learned Advocate for the respondents that sufficient reasons have been assigned in the 168th board meeting dated 26.12.2011 at the time of cancellation of the claim and it has been categorically observed that the scheme was cancelled and the authority decided to make another offer by inviting applications afresh. 8. Learned Advocate for the State respondents vehemently contended that as a matter of public policy of the Government of West Bengal the scheme was cancelled and it was decided to make another offer by inviting applications afresh. Such policy decision of the Government of West Bengal cannot be the subject matter of judicial review. Moreover, the authorities acted in terms of the clauses contained in the brochure and therefore question of giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in any view of the matter does not arise at all. 9. Learned Advocate for the state respondents further contended that the petitioners did not acquire any right by the mere filing applications in terms of the advertisement issued by the respondents and therefore they did not acquire any right and question of reserving their right in cases of any future invitation to offer of such land would not arise. 10. Admittedly, the petitioners participated in the lottery pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents by depositing some amount. It is apparent from the decision of the authorities that the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority in its 168th board meeting dated 29th March, 2012 has decided to cancel the entire scheme and to make another offer by inviting applications afresh. The petitioners could not produce any document to show that they were successful in such lottery and allotment letters were duly issued in favour of the petitioners. In absence of any such document it would be next to impossible to hold that such lands in terms of para 9 of the writ petition were actually allotted in favour of the petitioners. Mere invitation to offer does not create any contract between the parties. In absence of any such document it would be next to impossible to hold that such lands in terms of para 9 of the writ petition were actually allotted in favour of the petitioners. Mere invitation to offer does not create any contract between the parties. Admittedly, the respondents had invited applications to offer the land to the successful candidates in the lottery to be held under the supervision of the state respondents. Invitation to offer cannot be construed as an offer unless it is being translated into a contract between the parties. Had there been any issuance of letter on the part of the respondents accepting the result of the lottery, in that event the state respondents would have been bound to respect their action. The state respondents would have been made liable in that case by invoking the Principles of Promissory Estoppel also. 11. The Principle of Promissory Estoppel being an extension of Principle of Equity, the basic purpose of which is to promote justice founded on fairness and relieve a promise of any injustice perpetrated due to promisors going back on its promise unless the promise gives rise to binding contract. The petitioners have failed to establish that such invitations to offer and holding of such lottery have established a contract between the promisee and promisor. In that view of this case the rule of Promissory Estoppel cannot be applied in any view of the case under reference. No legal relationship has been established between the petitioners and the respondents merely in view of invitation of such applications and holding of lottery without publication of the results thereof and without giving any letter of allotment to the petitioners. The law does not accept any such relationship in order to invoke the principle of promissory Estoppel. The law does not permit it nor equity can countenance it. 12. The Principles of Natural Justice also cannot be given effect to in the context of the given facts and circumstances of this case, as such action would create a chaotic situation in every action of the Government. Innumerable persons submitted their applications for participating in the lottery and the entire scheme has been cancelled by the respondent authority in order invite applications afresh as a policy decision of the Government. Innumerable persons submitted their applications for participating in the lottery and the entire scheme has been cancelled by the respondent authority in order invite applications afresh as a policy decision of the Government. It would be next to impossible on the part of the state respondents to give the opportunity of hearing to each and every applicant before taking any decision to implement the policy of the Government. Therefore, the submission on that score does not inspire the confidence of the Court to accept such contention. 13. Admittedly fresh offer may be given by respondents for allotment of such lands by inviting applications from very many persons. In no circumstances the case of the present petitioners can be preempted as the allotee of such lands since such action on the part of the Court would not only be contrary to the law but may be counterproductive. In that view of this case I find no reason to accept the case of the petitioners. 14. The writ petition being devoid of merit is thus dismissed. 15. No order as to costs.