Judgment :- 1. In W.P. No. 2601 of 1996, petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, calling for the records from the file of 3rd respondent made in Ref. No. K2/14747/95 dated 12.1.1996, quash the same and further direct the respondents to allot the available vacant shops - Types A-1 to A-5 in Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex to the members of petitioner-Association numbering 31, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is a registered Association and the affidavit is sworn to by its Secretary. It is said that the Association was formed by the wholesale merchants at Kothwal Market area, George Town, and the members of the Association and their predecessors had been doing business for the last more than 200 years. Due to traffic congestion, and also pollution, health hazard, etc., the Government envisaged a scheme to shift the Kothwal Market to Koyambedu area by constructing a big wholesale complex known as Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex for perishable goods wherein separate shops have been constructed in various sizes, as Type A-1 to A-5, for vegetables, fruits, flowers, etc. The rate was fixed at Rs. 375/- per sq. ft. initially. The shifting of the market from George Town area to Koyambedu was also with a view to contain lorry traffic. When there were disputes with regard to rates fixed for various types of shops, certain Associations went before the Honourable Supreme Court, and, in SLP (Civil) No. 7753 of 1986 filed by the Madras Perishable Goods Merchants’ Association, the Honourable Supreme Court gave certain directions. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of that Order, special weightage has to be given not only in price but also in instalments for the George Town Traders in Kothwal Market area than others. The members of the petitioner-Association who were carrying on business in George Town area, were also interested in getting allotment in Koyambedu Market. But many disputes arose with reference to allotment of shops, price fixed, instalments to be paid, handing over the allotted shops, etc., and there were also civil suits filed by various Associations. Initially, an interim Order was granted. But subsequently it was vacated. But many disputes arose with reference to allotment of shops, price fixed, instalments to be paid, handing over the allotted shops, etc., and there were also civil suits filed by various Associations. Initially, an interim Order was granted. But subsequently it was vacated. On 11.1.1998, allotment was made to such of those persons who had applied for allotment of shops in Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex. So far as the petitioner-Association is concerned, there were 80 members out of which 60 had applied, and the remaining 20 members did not apply as they had not obtained the necessary application form. Out of the 60, for those who have applied, allotments were made on 11.1.1988 and 38 persons had paid the instalments and 22 persons, though they got the application and registered themselves for the purpose of allotment, they did not pay the instalment in time. After the interim injunction order was vacated in the various litigations, second respondent who had earlier cancelled the allotments to various applicants, revoked the cancellation and directed payment of Rs. 1,000/- as revocation charges and further directed that the allottees can pay the balance instalments or the entire amount itself. All the 22 applicants also wanted to pay the revocation charges. Second respondent refused to accept the same on the ground that no shops are available. The 22 members who had not applied at all, were thinking that they can continue their wholesale trade in Kotwal Market area itself as some of them were having their own buildings in the Kotwal Market area. On 9.3.1994, there was a draw for allotment of shops, and, it is the case of the petitioner that various shops are even now vacant, and the details are given in paragraph 7. Petitioner-Association met on 5.8.1994 and requested the respondents to allot various available shops to petitioner-Association as they are ready and willing to pay the amount for those shops and they also expressed their willingness to shift their wholesale trade from Kotwal Market area to Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex. A reply was sent on 7.9.1994, informing the Association that the petitioners request is under consideration and that they will be informed about further action as regards the allotment of shops. Further representations were also made by the petitioner-Association which were also replied by the respondents on 20.4.1995. A reply was sent on 7.9.1994, informing the Association that the petitioners request is under consideration and that they will be informed about further action as regards the allotment of shops. Further representations were also made by the petitioner-Association which were also replied by the respondents on 20.4.1995. On 12.1.1996, petitioner-Association was informed that they must instruct their members to apply for allotment of shops as and when advertisements are released in Dailies in future. It is that letter that is impeached in this Writ Petition. It is said that in the meanwhile, there was a meeting with the Madras Perishable Goods Merchants Association Action Committee to which the petitioner-Association is affiliated, on 12.10.1995, in which the Vice-Chairman and Member-Secretary of 2nd respondent and others participated, and the petitioner-Association and the Action Committee wanted a decision to be takeen regarding allotment of shops. At that time it was clarified by respondents that only few shops are vacant due to cancellation and they are kept under reserve to meet any statutory demand during implementation of the proposed legislation. It was stated by respondents in the meeting that these vacant shops will be considered for allotment only after bringing in of the Legislation and shifting of the wholesale traders to the new Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex. On 28.2.1996, the new Act was passed. It is also made clear by 2nd respondent that after co-ordination of the Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex, wholesale trade in Kotwal Market area cannot be carried on as lorries will not be permitted to enter the George Town area. It is said that the Koyambedu Market Complex was constructed only for the purpose of rehabilitating the Kotwal Wholesale dealers and, therefore, the respondents cannot deny the members of petitioner-Association, shops in the new complex. 3. It is their further case that when shops are available in Koyambedu Market Complex, preference ought to have been given only for the George Town traders in the first instance. Respondents cannot deny allotment of shops numbering 31 who have asked for allotment of various types of shops in Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex. It is further said that with regard to the price, it is fixed as Rs. 365/- per sq.ft. in the Government Order. But since amount has not been paid in time, they are bound to pay 18% interest. It is further said that with regard to the price, it is fixed as Rs. 365/- per sq.ft. in the Government Order. But since amount has not been paid in time, they are bound to pay 18% interest. In view of the declaration of the new market area, a situation has come where no business could be done in Kotwal Market place. Till the petitioner-Association members are provided shops in the new Market Complex, they must be allowed to continue the business in the very same place. They also sought an injunction restraining the respondents from allotting any shop to any outsider i.e., non-George Town trader, without allotting them shops in the new market place. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by third respondent stating that the first phase of the Koyambedu Market Complex for trading in perishable goods, namely, vegetables, flowers and fruits is nearing completion. Applications were invited for allotment of shops in the year 1987. As per letter dated 5.1.1988, the third respondent informed all the George Town traders who had applied, to remit the initial deposit for getting provisional allotment order. Those who paid the initial deposit, got tenative allotment orders, and the third respondent advised them to remit the balance cost by instalments as indicated to them. There were defaulters. Third respondent gave them reasonable chances during 1989 and 1991 to pay the initial deposit and arrears of instalments due, so as to confirm the provisional allotment orders. Respondent No. 3 gave further opportunity even to the defaulters whose allotment order was cancelled, by asking them to remit Rs. 1,000/- as revocation fee for revoking the cancellation of allotment order. Many of the George Town Traders availed this opportunity. In regard to S.L.P. referred to in the Writ Petition, it is said that the same was filed by the Madras Tomato Commission Merchants Association, and concession was given only for the Members of that Association. In spite of it, respondent extended the concession to all the traders in the Kotwal area iv respective of their trades and Associations in Which they are members. There are about 24 Associations in the George Town area. In spite of it, respondent extended the concession to all the traders in the Kotwal area iv respective of their trades and Associations in Which they are members. There are about 24 Associations in the George Town area. The third respondent allotted shops, giving preference to the George Town Traders and in those cases where the George Town Traders failed to avail the opportunity by reason of their own negligence, respondent was left with no option, except not to allot the shops to them. It is admitted in the counter that allotment had been made to traders other than George Town Traders. But the same was made only after accommodating the George Town traders, who had made applications earlier. Some shops also fell vacant in the vegetable market Section due to non-payment of initial deposit and instalments for a long time. Many of the George Town Traders Associations present in the meeting held on 12.10.1995 in M.M.D.A., had requested for allotment of these vacant shops. Petitioner herein also attended the meeting. Though the Action Committee representatives who are traders only, had requested that the vacant shops may be allotted to George Town Traders, it was clarified to them by respondent during the meeting itself that the vacant shops available due to cancellation are kept in reserve to meet any statutory commitment which may arise on account of the bill introducing The Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 28.2.1996. It is said that after the Act came into force, under Sec. 22 of the Act, the wholesale business has to be done only in the new market, and alternative trading facility has to be examined to a genuine trader in George Town area who has not got allotment, but sought alternative accommodation in the Koyambedu Wholesale Market. Therefore, the respondent is duty-bound to give equal opportunity to all the George Town Traders first, after assessing the vacancy position of the shops, and the petitioners request for allotting the vacant shops for its members cannot be accepted at this stage. The request for allotment of a particular types of shop also cannot be considered in view of the said reason. Regarding the price fixed, it is said that it was fixed in 1987-88 at Rs. 365/-. In 1989, this amount was fixed as Rs. The request for allotment of a particular types of shop also cannot be considered in view of the said reason. Regarding the price fixed, it is said that it was fixed in 1987-88 at Rs. 365/-. In 1989, this amount was fixed as Rs. 402.50.p. for George Town Traders as per resolution of Respondent-Authority. Subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs. 650/-. Under no circumstance, petitioner can claim allotment at the old rate. It is said that the third respondent is not taking steps to allot vacant shops to outsiders. The vacant shops have to be kept so, to meet the statutory obligation enjoined upon the third respondent. Respondents prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. A reply affidavit has also been filed reiterating the contentions raised in the Writ Petition. 6. W.P. Nos. 19158 and 19276 of 1996 and 204, 500, 615, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1516, 1879, 2177 and 2613 of 1997 are by individual traders in the George Town area. Relief sought for in these Writ Petitions is the same, i.e., issuance of writ of mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 3 to declare the George Town Area also as a notified market area to carry on trade in vegetables and other perishable commodities under the Tamil Nadu Specified Markets (Regulation of Location) Act, 1996 or in the alternative, direct the respondents to allot shops to petitioners in the new Koyambedu Market Complex, and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the business of the petitioners till such facility is made to the petitioners to shift their business to the new notified area, and thus render justice. 7. In all these Writ Petitions, it is contended by the respective petitioner that they are doing business for the last nearly two centuries, and under the Act, the authorities are bound to provide alternate accommodation at Koyambedu Market Complex. It is said that they applied for allotment. But they could not pay the instalments. Due to default In payment of instalment, the allotment was cancelled. Even though there was notification that the cancellation will be revoked on payment of Rs. 1,000/- as revocation charges along with instalments, there was no compulsion at that time that the payment has to be made one day or the other, and they have to move from the George Town area. Even though there was notification that the cancellation will be revoked on payment of Rs. 1,000/- as revocation charges along with instalments, there was no compulsion at that time that the payment has to be made one day or the other, and they have to move from the George Town area. There was also no stipulation that if they do not shift from Kotwal area, they cannot continue to do the business there. The question of applying for an alternative accommodation to carry on the wholesale trade in the new notified area will arise only when the Act is gazetted. It is said that when the new complex has been constructed, their intention was to shift the George Town Traders to rehabilitate in the new area, and there is a statutory obligation on the part of the respondents to provide them with alternate accommodation. The Act has now been gazetted and thereafter the petitioner has been prevented from doing business in the Kotwal area. Writ Petitions have been filed to prevent the respondents from causing any obstruction to their business in George Town Area till allotment is made in the Koyambedu Market Complex. 8. A common counter affidavit has been filed on the same lines as in W.P. 2601 of 1996, and hence it need not be repeated. 9. According to me, these Writ Petitions could be disposed of together. 10. Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act, 1996, it is incumbent on the market committee to provide every registered wholesale trader with suitable alternative facilities at such places in the market, of such nature and size, and on such terms and conditions as the market committee may determine, to enable him to carry on his wholesale trade in the market. The argument is that when there is statutory duty imposed on the respondent, unless they are provided with alternate accommodation, their business at George Town area is not to be disturbed. It is said that they are agreeable to shift their business to the new area, and it is also said that there are vacant shops available in the Koyambedu Complex. It is also said that the Koyambedu Complex itself was established only to shift the George Town Traders, to Koyambedu Market. It is said that they are agreeable to shift their business to the new area, and it is also said that there are vacant shops available in the Koyambedu Complex. It is also said that the Koyambedu Complex itself was established only to shift the George Town Traders, to Koyambedu Market. If that is so, apart from the statutory duty, even otherwise, the respondents are bound to provide alternate accommodation. 11. As against the contention of learned Counsel for petitioners, learned Senior Counsel for respondent C.M.DA. submitted that the Koyambedu Market Complex was envisaged even in the year 1987, and at that time, the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act, 1996 was not in force. At that time, the Development Authority, i.e., C.M.D.A. thought of shifting the George Town Wholesale traders to the Koyambedu Market Complex, and various traders were offered shops. Many traders opted for the same, and even members of the petitioner-Association sought for allotment. Even though some of them applied and obtained provisional allotment, many of them did not pay the instalment, and their allotment had to be cancelled. Even after the cancellation, a further opportunity was given to various traders in the George Town Area to revive their application on payment of Rs. 1,000/- towards revocation fee and also on payment of arrears. Even that opportunity was not availed by members of the petitioner-Association. They have given preference to the traders in George Town area. 12. When there were vacancies, the same were also sought to be filled up by allotting the same to traders from that area. When all these allotments were made, the Act was not in force. The C.M.D.A. had the authority to allot the shops to any person, and that was legally done, and the traders have also occupied the shops. Documents have also been executed in their favour. At the time when the Act came into force, some shops fell vacant since some traders defaulted in payment or their allotment was cancelled. It is said that those shops had to be retained since they may have to comply with certain statutory obligations when the Act is implemented. The said decision was taken at the meeting held on 12.10.1995 in which the members of the petitioner-Association and other traders participated. It is said that those shops had to be retained since they may have to comply with certain statutory obligations when the Act is implemented. The said decision was taken at the meeting held on 12.10.1995 in which the members of the petitioner-Association and other traders participated. It is also said that after the Act was gazetted, the Authorities cannot declare the George Town Area as a market area since the very purpose of establishing a new market area was to shift the George Town traders, to the Koyambedu Market Complex. The members of the petitioner-Association did not fulfil their obligations and did not express their willingness to get the allotment when offer was made. After the meeting on 12.10.1995, when representation was made, they were intimated that if there is any vacancy, the same could be filled up only in accordance with the provisions of the Act, which was about to be implemented. It was under these circumstances, the petitioner-Association informed on 12.1.1996 to wait for publication regarding allotment. The letter dated 12.1.1996 is not without jurisdiction, and it was sent only in reply to the representation of the petitioner-Association. 13. The limited question that arises for consideration in these cases is, whether the letter dated 12.1.1996 is liable to be quashed, and whether the respondents can be compelled to declare the George Town Area as a market area, and whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief of compelling the respondents to allot them shops at Koyambedu Market. 14. As I said already, it is admitted in the counter itself that some shops fell vacant, and they are retained as such and they cannot be allotted to petitioner since they have to comply with certain statutory obligations. It is stated that the allotment made before the Act came into force and before the Market Committee has been constituted, cannot be challenged by the petitioner. At that time, the C.M.DA. was the absolute owner, and it could allot shops in the way it wanted, though preference was given to the Traders in the George Town area. On the date when the Act was not in force, if any allotment had been made and the allottees had already occupied the shops, the same is valid, and cannot be questioned by petitioners. 15. Petitioners were also given opportunity to get the allotment. On the date when the Act was not in force, if any allotment had been made and the allottees had already occupied the shops, the same is valid, and cannot be questioned by petitioners. 15. Petitioners were also given opportunity to get the allotment. Since they did not avail the same, they could not be allotted. Either way, they cannot put forward a grievance that the allotment already made is illegal or improper. All those allotments will stand. 16. In these cases, we are concerned only with the shops that were vacant at the time when the Act came into force. The petitioners have given some numbers, they cannot be taken at their face value. The basis on which such statements are made, is not stated. I can only say that some shops are vacant in the Koyambedu Market Complex. Regarding the same, what is the right of the petitioners to get allotment? Chapter HI of the Act provides for registration of wholesale traders and wholesale trading in specified commodity in market area under licence. Sub-Section (1) of Section 20 says that ‘The Chief Administrative Officer of every market committee shall maintain a register, for every specified commodity for registering the wholesale traders, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed’. Sub-Section (2) of Sec. 20 says that ‘As soon as may be, after any area is declared to be a market area for any specified commodity, the Chief Administrative Officer shall issue a notice in such form and publish it in such manner as may be prescribed, inviting all the wholesale traders actively engaged in the wholesale trader of such specified commodity in the local area, to apply in writing to him for registering themselves with the Market Committee. Such applications shall be invited within such period as may be prescribed, calling upon the applicants to adduce evidence that the applicants have been actively engaged in the wholesale trade of such specified commodity in the local area immediately before the date of publication of the notification under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4; Section 22 on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for petitioners will apply only if the wholesale traders name is registered with the market committee. For getting registered, there must be publication as envisaged in Section 20. ‘Registered wholesale trader’ has been defined under the Act. For getting registered, there must be publication as envisaged in Section 20. ‘Registered wholesale trader’ has been defined under the Act. So long as the Notification has not been published under Section 20, there is no scope for applying the principle of Section 22. May be the vacant shops could be allotted only after complying with the provisions of the Act, since it is the duty of the market committee to decide regarding allotment. But that will not clothe the petitioners with any right at this stage, that they must be allowed to continue their trade in the George Town area. Notification under Section 21 of the Act has also been published. At the most, petitioners can only seek a direction asking the second respondent to act under Sec. 20 of the Act. 17. The relief sought for in these Writ Petitions is that, the George Town area must also be declared as a market area, by issuance of writ of mandamus. The same cannot be granted, for, that depends upon the policy of the Government. Court cannot compel the Government to issue such a notification. When the petitioners have failed in making applications or for their allotments, respondents cannot be compelled to issue such a notice as prayed for. When the very purpose of establishing Koyambedu Market Complex was to close down the George Town Market Area, the Court will not issue a writ of mandamus, which will defeat the very purpose. Thus, all the Writ Petitions wherein such a relief is sought, are dismissed. I also do not find any illegality in the letter dated 12.1.1996 issued by 2nd respondent. As rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for respondent CM. D.A., that letter is issued only by way of reply to the representation of the petitioners. Till date, the shops that fell vacant have not been allotted. Petitioners will have to wait till publication is made as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act. Naturally, Writ Petition No. 2601 of 1996 will have to be dismissed. D.A., that letter is issued only by way of reply to the representation of the petitioners. Till date, the shops that fell vacant have not been allotted. Petitioners will have to wait till publication is made as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act. Naturally, Writ Petition No. 2601 of 1996 will have to be dismissed. I only direct the respondents to take early action as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act and invite applications for registration of traders and thereafter proceed with the allotment of shops, after taking into consideration the fact that the applications are actively engaged in business of specified commodity in the local area as envisaged in Sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. I also make it clear that if any allotment is made to a trader, respondents are entitled to fix then-own rates. Rates fixed in 1987-88 will have no bearing at present. The request of petitioner that they must be allotted shops at Rs. 365/- per sq. ft., cannot be accepted. 18. In fact, the judgment relied on by learned Counsel for petitioner, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2086 ( M/s. Labha Ram & Sons v. State of Punjab ), Para 16 also enables the respondents to fix any rate above the reserved price for a registered trader, subject to the limitation that it should not be an unreasonable rate. 19. For the reasons stated above, all these Writ Petitions, namely, W.P. Nos. 2601, 19158 and 19276 of 1996 and W.P. Nos. 204, 500, 615, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1516, 1879, 2177 and 2613 of 1997 are dismissed, subject to the above direction. 20. W.P. No. 1974 of 1997: Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to Letter No. K3/11883/96 dated 8.10.1996 issued by 2nd respondent, and quash the same, and direct the respondents to allot a shop at Koyambedu Wholesale Market to the petitioner immediately. 21. The petitioner was allotted a shop provisionally, and he himself defaulted in paying the amount, and subsequently the allotment was cancelled. Second respondent offered to revoke the cancellation on payment of revocation charges and also on payment of arrears of instalment, within a particular time. It is the case of the petitioner that he sent a cheque representing the amount on the last day, but the same was returned by second respondent. That was in 1991. Second respondent offered to revoke the cancellation on payment of revocation charges and also on payment of arrears of instalment, within a particular time. It is the case of the petitioner that he sent a cheque representing the amount on the last day, but the same was returned by second respondent. That was in 1991. Five years after that, petitioner filed a representation to the respondents in August 1996 that he may be allotted a shop. Petitioner was informed that he has to wait for advertisement regarding further allotment of shops. It is also stated that subsequently a shop was allotted to him temporarily, and even the same was taken possession back by respondents after removing all the materials kept therein by petitioner. It is the case of petitioner that the action of the respondents is highhanded, and he wanted a shop to be allotted to him. 22. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents, it is admitted that the petitioner made an application, and a provisional allotment was also made. It is also admitted by them that subsequently the same was cancelled in 1991. The petitioner did not challenge the same till he filed this Writ Petition. He only made a request in 1996 for allotment of a shop, for which a reply was sent in August 1996, which he has challenged in this Writ Petition, it is also said that a similar reply has been sent to the Traders Association, which has filed W.P. 2601 of 1996. 23. Regarding taking possession of the shop back, if is said that in W.P. 2601 of 1996, there was an interim Order, prohibiting allotment of shops. The same was not disclosed to the Chairman at the time when the temporary accommodation was given. When the interim Order of this Court was brought to the notice of the respondents, apprehending contempt proceedings, the respondents were compelled to take possession back, with notice to the petitioner. Respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 24. On hearing learned Counsel for all the parties, I do not think that the petitioner herein is entitled to any relief. The fact that he committed default in paying instalments is admitted. In spite of the fact that the cancellation was informed to him by returning the cheque, he waited for nearly five years, shows that the present Writ Petition is lacking in good faith. The fact that he committed default in paying instalments is admitted. In spite of the fact that the cancellation was informed to him by returning the cheque, he waited for nearly five years, shows that the present Writ Petition is lacking in good faith. Only when, the Association filed a Writ Petition, petitioner also thought of filing this Writ Petition by putting forward his claim. The letter dated 8.10.1996 is only a reply letter issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioners representation. There is no illegality or impropriety in that Order. Respondents have only informed the petitioner to wait for advertisement regarding allotment. 25. Regarding the allegation that the respondents have taken back possession of the temporary accommodation, it is also justified when there was, an interim Order from this Court. Respondents cannot violate Orders of this Court and naturally they are bound to restore the status quo . There is no merit in the Writ Petition and consequently it is dismissed. I make it clear that if the petitioner is successful enough to get his name registered as a registered trader, respondents will be statutorily bound to provide him with a shop. When petitioner applies for registration, it is for the respondents to consider whether his name should be registered, in accordance with law. Respondents will deal with such application, when filed by petitioner, in accordance with law. 26. W.P. No. 18857 of 1996: It is the case of the petitioner that Shop No. 44 in Block A was allotted to him as per drawal of lots on 25.3.1996. It is the case of the petitioner that after allotment, he was informed by letter dated 25.3.1996 that he will be informed about the date of handing over possession. Thereafter, there was; no intimation from respondents. 27. I only direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, and if the shop is not allotted, or could not be allotted, the same may be intimated, to him stating the reasons. If the shop is allotted, and it is also available for allotment for the petitioner, it may be done within a reasonable time. The Writ Petition is disposed of as indicated above No costs. 28. If the shop is allotted, and it is also available for allotment for the petitioner, it may be done within a reasonable time. The Writ Petition is disposed of as indicated above No costs. 28. W.P. 213 of 1997: Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 3 to declare the G T Area also as a notified market area to carry on trade in vegetable and other perishable commodities under the Tamil Nadu Specified Markets (Regulation of Location) Act 1996 or in the alternative, direct the respondents to allot 2 A-1 type shops in the new Koyambedu Market Wholesale Complex, and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the business of the petitioner till such facility is made to the petitioner to shift his business to the new notified area, and render justice. 29. For the reasons which I have stated while disposing of W.P. No. 2061 of 1996, etc. as indicated above, this Writ Petition is also liable to be dismissed, and I do so. No costs. 30. In the result, W.P., Nos. 2601, 19158 and 192 of 1996 and W.P. Nos. 204, 500, 615, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1516, 1879, 2177 and 2613 of 1997 are dismissed, subject to the direction given above. W.P. No. 1974 of 1997 is disposed of as indicated above, with direction to respondents to consider in accordance with law whenever an application is filed by petitioner therein for registering his same as a wholesale trader. W.P. No. 18857 of 1996 is disposed of as indicated supra. W.P. No. 213 of 1997 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in all the Writ Petitions. All pending WM.Ps. are closed.