Judgment :- N.K.Jain, J. Since both the writ appeals arise under the same facts and question of law they are being disposed of by a common judgment. Both the writ appeals are filed against the common order of the learned single Judge made in a batch of writ petitions dated 210. 1998 whereby the prayer to quash the letter dated 11. 1996 and further direction to allot available vacant shops types A-1 to A-5 in Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex to the members of the petitioner Association, was rejected with certain directions. 2. It is alleged that the petitioner is a registered association carrying on wholesale business at Kothwal Market, George Town for the last 200 years. The said market was shifted to Koyambedu by constructing a big wholesale complex for perishable goods to avoid traffic congestion, pollution and health hazards and various types of shops were constructed fixing the rate initially at Rs.375 per sq.ft. It is alleged that the Madras Perishable Goods Merchants Association went before the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.7753 of 1986, which was disposed of with certain directions, directing that 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. In compliance thereof the rate was fixed at 365 per sq.ft. The grievance of the petitioners is that after coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with effect from 28. 1996 the Government without complying the provisions of Secs.20 and 22 and without providing alternative accommodation in the new wholesale market at Koyambedu, cannot disturb the petitioners from their old place and further cannot be charged higher rate of Rs.2,500 per sq.ft. as demanded by the advertisement dated 24. 1997. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the increase is not reasonable in view of the decision reported in Labha Ram and Sons v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2086, and is very much excessive compared to the original rate of Rs.365 per sq.ft. and therefore the letter dated 11. 1996 is bad and the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. and therefore the letter dated 11. 1996 is bad and the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State is not to generate the revenue by uprooting the traders like petitioners on the basis of statutory notification. 3. On the other hand the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the point agitated cannot be gone into in the writ proceedings and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the market was shifted in the year 1986-1987. Out of 80 members of the petitioner association, 20 did not apply at that relevant time and only 60 applied in the year 1987. All of them are allotted shops on 11. 1998. It is also submitted that out of 60 traders who have applied for allotment 38 have paid all instalments and shifted to new place and 22 are at default, as such they cannot seek any relief as sought for that they may be permitted to allot shop in lieu of their shops in the Kothwal Market at the same rate and by adding 18% interest thereon and therefore they cannot challenge the letter dated 11. 1996 on any ground. It is also submitted that after Sec.4 of the Act read with Secs.7 and 5 came in force, one cannot, carry out any activity or business other than the market area. So far as the compliance of Sec.20 of the Act is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that they will comply with Sec.20, if the George Town traders made applications for registration and they will give preference in providing alternative trading facility to such genuine registered traders as per Sec.22 of the Act. It is further submitted that since, the letter dated 11. 1996 is nothing but a letter asking them to apply for allotment of shops, petitioners cannot seek any direction to quash the impugned notification and the order of the learned single Judge dated 210. 1998. So far as the challenge of rate is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the rates were fixed for different years as per the applications, as prevailed in that particular year. 1998. So far as the challenge of rate is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the rates were fixed for different years as per the applications, as prevailed in that particular year. Initially in 1987 it was Rs.365 per sq.ft., in 1989 it was Rs.402 per sq.ft, in 1992 it was Rs.775 per sq.ft., in 1995 it was Rs.915 per sq.ft, in 1996 it was Rs.1,010 per sq.ft. and in 1997 it was Rs.2,500 per sq.ft. It is also submitted that the rates were neither the subject matter of the writ petition nor can be gone into in the writ petition as the Market Committee will consider as on such terms and conditions as required under the law at appropriate time and therefore the petitioners cannot take advantage of the case law cited supra. 5. We have heard the learned counsel on both the sides and perused the materials on record. As the facts reveal that when the market was shifted to Koyambedu for whatsoever reasons, the petitioners and like others were given an opportunity to apply for the allotment of shops and their cases were considered and some of them were allotted shops and they are doing their business. It is also seen that other who are defaulters in payment of money were also given opportunity and despite a further opportunity to pay with fine was given they did not avail of the same. Be that as it may be, the petitioners cannot agitate the issuance of the letter dated 11. 1996. A perusal of the impugned letter reveals that the Chief Executive Officer of M.M.D.A. requested the Secretary of the petitioner-Association to instruct the members of the association to apply for allotment of shops as and when advertisement is released in the dailies. As such, in our view, this will not give any right to the petitioner to challenge the impugned letter dated 11. 1996, more so, when the Act published on 28. 1996 was not challenged. The argument of the petitioners that the members of the petitioner association are entitled for the allotment of shops, that too at the rate of original price fixed in the year 1987 at the most on payment of 18% interest, is not tenable and acceptable. It is seen that the impugned Act has come into force now. So no relief as prayed for can be granted. It is seen that the impugned Act has come into force now. So no relief as prayed for can be granted. As stated by the learned Senior counsel the Market Committee and the respondents will follow the Rules in accordance with law. In view of what we have stated above, we find no error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge so as to call for any interference. Both the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.17017 of 1998, 12137 and 10731 of 1999 are closed.