ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The dispute in the present case pertains to the demolition of nineteen stalls situated at Kshanika Market in New Digha, West Bengal. 3. Nineteen persons whose shops were demolished filed a writ petition before the High Court of Calcutta seeking to challenge a notice dated 23 November 2017 issued to the shop owners by the Digha Sankarpur Development Authority 1 [“Authority”]. 4. The High Court, by its impugned judgment and order dated 14 December 2018, directed the Authority to endeavour to allot fresh land and/or stalls within the planning area within three months and in the event that this was not possible, to pass reasoned orders. The High Court also directed the Authority to decide the issue of paying compensation, preferably within a period of three months. These directions came after a finding by the High Court that the licenses granted to the 19 shop owners had not been validly terminated. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant sought to submit that the agreements of almost all the 19 shop owners had lapsed by efflux of time and were terminated formally by a notice dated 18 November 2015. According to the Authority, the licenses were for a tenure of three years which could be renewed subject to a fresh agreement. The Authority urged, in the course of the appeal, that several of the licence holders had carried out illegal and unauthorised constructions. 6. During the course of the hearing of the appeal and after notice was issued by this Court on 25 March 2019, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that an effort has been made to rehabilitate these 19 shop owners. It has been submitted that the beautification of the beach front at New Digha was conceptualised under a World Bank aided project and as a part of an integrated coastal management plan, Development took place in phases under which stalls were built and distributed. It has been submitted that several options were given to the shop owners in the past which have not been accepted. 7. In the affidavit which has been filed in these proceedings by the appellant, it was stated that the Authority is presently ready to rehabilitate the shop owners near the Central Bus Stand where shop spaces are available for allotment. 7. In the affidavit which has been filed in these proceedings by the appellant, it was stated that the Authority is presently ready to rehabilitate the shop owners near the Central Bus Stand where shop spaces are available for allotment. While it was urged that this locality is less than a kilometer away from the beach front, the respondents submitted that the area is not capable of attracting the same business which the shop owners attracted at the erstwhile location. 8. In order to obviate any grievance, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, on taking further instructions, submitted that the Authority is ready and willing to accommodate the 19 shop owners at the shops which have been developed on the Foreshore Road leading upto the Jagannath temple. It has been stated that the shop owners may indicate their acceptance of either of the two locations in which event, shops will be allotted. 9. The object and purport of the directions which were issued by the High Court was to ensure that an alternate location is made available to the shop owners as a measure of rehabilitation, on their displacement. Bearing the salutary purpose in mind and in view of the statement which has been made on behalf of the Authority, we direct that; (i) Within a period of two weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, the Authority shall intimate to the shop owners the alternate location as stated above, where shops would be allotted in lieu of the earlier shops which were demolished; (ii) Within a period of four weeks thereafter, the shop owners shall intimate to the Authority as to whether and if so, which of the two locations is acceptable to them and upon the communication of such acceptance, the Authority shall proceed to make an allotment in accordance with its policy; (iii) In the event that any shop owner is not agreeable to accept the accommodation which is being offered, it would be open to the shop owner concerned to make a representation to the Authority in regard to any alternate allotment, which shall be considered in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months from the receipt of the representation. 10. 10. We clarify that in the event that the shops proposed to be allotted as recorded above are not acceptable to the 19 shop owners, the Authority will, after a lapse of three months from today, be at liberty to make allotments in accordance with law to third parties. 11. The appeal shall accordingly stand allowed in terms of the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.