ORDER : 1. Instant writ petition has been filed for commanding upon the respondent no. 4 to allot the shops to the petitioners in Ram Chandra Bazar Haat Complex in view of the memorandum of agreement entered between the petitioners and the respondent no. 4. 2. Petitioners were shop owners in Ram Chandra Bazar Haat and were running their business since last 50 years which was their only source of livelihood. The shops were situated in Madhupur Municipal Corporation area and a proposal was mooted for construction and for development of the market into a building complex. On the assurance of allotment in the upcoming complex on preferential basis, they were evicted from shops. 3. In compliance to the public notice issued by respondent no. 1, on 18.07.2017, they vacated the shops under the legitimate expectation that after construction of the complex, shops would to be allotted to them. It is further case of the petitioners that to decide over allotment, lottery was held on 16.03.2021 in which all the petitioners qualified and they deposited Rs. 5000/- as security amount and Rs. 50,000/- as the initial payment. 4. After the deposit of the amount, the agreement was also entered with regard to the allotment of the shops on 18th March, 2021 between Executive Officer, Madhupur Nagar Parishad-respondent no. 4 and the petitioners. 5. Despite the allotment having been made, the respondent-Municipal Corporation possession was not handed over and consequently instant writ petition was filed for allotment to the Petitioner. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 wherein factual assertions made on behalf of petitioners, have not been disputed, that there was a proposal for construction of Ram Chandra Bazar Haat Complex, in which allotments were made in favour of 14 persons. It is however asserted that the said allotments were cancelled vide order dated 26.10.2022 as the project was not found feasible due to heavy traffic pressure in that particular area, and the security deposit has already been refunded to some of the depositors. 7. It is yet another example of the intransigence of the State authorities, in matters which have a direct bearing on the livelihood of small shopkeepers, who had been allotted shops after receiving the security deposit, and without any show cause, the allotment has been cancelled behind their back. 8. 7. It is yet another example of the intransigence of the State authorities, in matters which have a direct bearing on the livelihood of small shopkeepers, who had been allotted shops after receiving the security deposit, and without any show cause, the allotment has been cancelled behind their back. 8. The State authorities are expected to act and be fair to its citizens and cannot take shifting stance putting into jeopardy their life and livelihood. In any case the cancellation of allotment could not have been done unilaterally without even hearing the parties who had been evicted from the shops on assurance of allotment to be made. They had been selected successfully on lottery and had also deposited the security deposit. 9. Under the circumstance, the order of cancellation of allotment, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent no. 4, who will take a reasoned decision on the matter after hearing the parties. It goes without saying that the petitioners will submit their representations afresh before the competent authority which will be disposed of within eight weeks from the receipt of their representations. 10. The writ petition, accordingly stands disposed of. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.