GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS are seeking to quash (1) the letter at Annexure-N1 dated 22. 11. 2000, (2) the show cause notice at Annexure-N2 dated 5. 1. 2001 and (3) the order at Annexure-Q dated 8. 3. 2001. A direction is also sought to the 2nd respondent to give effect to the resolution at Annexure-N dated 24. 10. 2000. ( 2 ) THIS is the second round of litigation. The matter pertains to Shop No. 26, AVM Floor, Jayanagar Shopping Complex, Bangalore. The facts and the contentions urged need not be gone into in view of the order passed in W. P. No. 24843/2000 disposed of on ( 3 ) 8. 2000, copy of which is produced as Annexure-L. In the light of the said order, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench in appeal vide order at Annexure-M, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the same as they have no right whatsoever over the shop in question. 3. In the earlier Writ Petition petitioners claimed to be in possession of the shop under one Smt. Noorjahan, which was held as unlawful. In this Writ Petition they are claiming to be in possession of the shop through the 3rd respondent Smt. Sufi Jahan. Admittedly litigation is pending between them. In view of the conflicting claim of the petitioners regarding possession and disputed questions of fact, this Court declines to entertain this Writ Petition. ( 4 ) UNDER Annexure-N dated 24. 10. 2000 the Standing Committee for Horticulture and Markets passed resolution to allot the shop in question by partitioning the same with the erection of a Wall in the middle at the cost of the petitioners and 3rd respondent and to give sub-numbers to them. The resolution was referred to the commissioner. The Commissioner found that the resolution was contrary to the decision of this Court in the earlier Writ Petition and also the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. Hence, he made a reference to the Government. The Government passed the impugned order at Annexure-Q cancelling the resolution at Annexure-N. The government has rightly passed the said order as the petitioners have no right whatsoever on the shop in question. Their possession was held to be unlawful in the earlier Writ Petition. Hence, he made a reference to the Government. The Government passed the impugned order at Annexure-Q cancelling the resolution at Annexure-N. The government has rightly passed the said order as the petitioners have no right whatsoever on the shop in question. Their possession was held to be unlawful in the earlier Writ Petition. Such being the position, the Standing Committee could not have passed the resolution at Annexure-N. ( 5 ) AS on the date of filing of this Writ Petition, the petitioners were not in possession of the shop as admitted in paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition. Further, their application for grant of license also has been rejected as admitted in paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition. The litigation between the petitioners and 3rd respondent is pending. That has nothing to do with the shop as it belong to 2nd respondent. Under these circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that there was delay in making reference by the Commissioner to the government and on such delayed reference the impugned order at annexure-Q passed by the Government is bad in law, does not hold water and the contention is rejected. It is an admitted fact that the third respondent is already put in possession of the shop in question, which is also another reason for this Court to hold that the petitioner is not entitled for relief. ( 6 ) WRIT Petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .