14.The main ground of challenge in the writ petitions is that the notification is in violation of the earlier order, which cannot be accepted. The 1st notification was issued on 04.03.2015 and after a lapse of two years, the present notification came to be issued on 01.03.2017. The respondent Corporation is the competent authority to decide to lease out the shops on daily basis or on monthly basis. In that process, this court cannot interfere and issue direction to the respondent Corporation to auction the shops in a particular manner. More over, the petitioners are not aggrieved persons, as they had been approaching the respondent in leasing out the shops on monthly rent. So, I do not find any ground to quash the order impugned in these writ petitions. 15.In that view, all the writ petitions are dismissed. The petitioners are directed to hand over the possession of the shops to the respondent Corporation within a period of seven days from today, failing which, the respondent Corporation is permitted to take possession of the shops with the help of the police. Further, taking note of the conduct of the petitioners, a direction is issued to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, to provide necessary police aid on the request of the respondent Corporation. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
