ORDER : V.V.S. Rao, J. All these five Writ Petitions involve a common question of law as to right of petitioners to transfer municipal shops in favour of others without obtaining any consent and the light of such transferee to seek mutation of the shop in his/her name. The cases came to be filed in similar background and therefore it is necessary to dispose of them by a common order. 2. In Writ Petition No.23815 of 2002 one Shaik China Nazir was allotted Shop No.7B-4 in Old Kaleshwara Rao Market, Vijayawada, on monthly rent about twenty years ago. In 1998, first respondent. Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (hereinafter called, the Corporation), proposed to construct a new shopping complex and sought to evict persons like petitioners. When the action of the Corporation was challenged before this Court, it appears, the Corporation undertook to provide alternative temporary sheds in the nearby municipal high school ground until construction of new shopping complex is completed which are to be allotted to them. After completion of construction of new shopping complex, all the petitioners were allotted shops temporarily/provisionally in July 2002. 3. Shaik China Nazir entered into an agreement with. Shaik Bikari Saheb, petitioner in Writ Petition No.23815 of 2002, agreeing to transfer the shop allotted to him in favour of Shaik Bikari Saheb purportedly on the ground that he has been keeping indifferent health and therefore he cannot carry on business in vegetables. Pursuant to the agreement thereto, Shaik Bikari Saheb made a request to the Corporation on 20-3-2002 requesting to mutate the shop in his name agreeing to pay rent as fixed by the Corporation. He also enclosed a communication addressed by Shaik China Nazir dated 20-3-2002 requesting to transfer the shop in the name of Shaik Bikari Saheb on the ground of indifferent health of Shaik China Nazir. The Corporation by the impugned communication dated 6-8-2002, rejected the request of Shaik Bikari Saheb, petitioner in Writ Petition No.23815 of 2002, to allot the shop in his name on the ground that no lease holder can transfer the shop in favour of others. This endorsements/orders dated 6-8-2002 issued to all the petitioners separately are subject matter of challenge before this Court. In all other Writ Petitions the factual background is same and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the same. This endorsements/orders dated 6-8-2002 issued to all the petitioners separately are subject matter of challenge before this Court. In all other Writ Petitions the factual background is same and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the same. Be it also noted after old shopping complex was demolished and new shopping complex was constructed pursuant to undertaking given before this Court, all the petitioners were allotted shops only on temporary basis and they are yet to be given permanent allotment. 4. Opposing the Writ Petitions a counter affidavit is filed stating that the petitioners were only given temporary allotment of shops and therefore they have no right for allotment either under statutory rules or under the terms and conditions of allotment, it is also stated that no shop is allotted in the name of ex-lessee so far and any allotment is tentative and therefore petitioners have no right to self or let out shops to third parties. 5. Sri K.S.R.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners raised two contentions. He submits that in all the cases the original ex- lessee has not transferred the shop to petitioners. There was a partnership even while old allottee was carrying on business in the old market area and as the original lessee for different reasons wants to retire from partnership, a request was made to mutate the property in the name of other partner. Secondly he would urge that in Indira Gandhi Municipal Shopping Complex at the request of original allottee Shop No. 49 was allotted by Vijayawada Municipal Corporation in the name of his partner one Smt.V.Madhavi, whereas in the case of petitioners such benefit is denied, which is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana. learned Standing Counsel has produced all the files in support of contentions raised in the counter affidavit which are reiterated again at the Bar. 7. The provisions of Hyderabad Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, HMC Act) and various Rules and Byelaws made thereunder are equally applicable to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation by reason of Section 6 of the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Act, 1981. 7. The provisions of Hyderabad Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, HMC Act) and various Rules and Byelaws made thereunder are equally applicable to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation by reason of Section 6 of the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Act, 1981. In exercise of powers under Section 585(2) of the HMC Act, the Government promulgated Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Acquisition and Disposal of Immovable Property) Rules, 1970 for short, the Rules) all the Municipal Corporations are required to follow the statutory rules while acquiring or disposing of the immovable property Rule 6 lays down that subject to provisions of Sections 124 and 148 of the HMC Act, the Commissioner may lease out any immovable property belonging to the Corporation duly following the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules, which contains procedure for issuing public notice and conducting auction. The lease deed for immovable property (See Rule 6(2) of the Rules) has to be in Form 111(A) in Schedule-Ill appended to the Rules. A perusal of the lease deed would show that under clause 2(7) every lessee has to covenant with lessor not to assign, underlet or part with possession of demised premises or any part thereof without first obtaining written consent of the lessor or its authorised officers. Draft lease deed submitted by petitioners is placed before me. Clause 13 thereof specifically bars an allottee from subleasing the shop fully or partly to any person or persons or concern, and that the lessee shall not transfer his tenancy rights or business interests in the shop to any person or persons or concern. It is no doubt true that Shaik China Nazir was given only temporary allotment and he has not been allotted any shop permanently. It does not mean that he can ignore the terms and conditions of draft lease deed and also the Form III(A) in Schedule-Ill of the Rules and transfer the shop in the name of others. 8. The submission of the learned counsel that original allottees of shops have entered into partnership due to various reasons and they want to retire under special circumstances which would enable the existing partner of carrying business, cannot be accepted. As seen from Clause 13 of the terms and conditions of the lease deed, even transfer in the name of concern, be it a company, or be it a partnership, is also prohibited. As seen from Clause 13 of the terms and conditions of the lease deed, even transfer in the name of concern, be it a company, or be it a partnership, is also prohibited. Be that as it is, a copy of agreement styled as partnership deed between Shaik China Nazir and Shaik Bikari Sahib, petitioner in Writ Petition No.23815 of 2002, is placed before me. After perusing the same, I am not able to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a partnership deed. Indeed, along with petitioner-Shaik Bikari Saheb, Shaik China Nazir also addressed the Corporation admitting that he is transferring his shop in the name of Shaik Bikari Saheb, who is allegedly carrying on business with him. It does not speak about any partnership between petitioner and Shaik China Nazir. Factually also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. 9. Yet another submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in relation to Indira Gandhi Municipal Shopping Complex, the Corporation accepted a proposal of original lessee to transfer original lease deed in favour of one Madhavi. A copy of the concerned resolution has been placed before this Court. A reading of the same would show that shoo No.49 of Indira Gandhi Municipal Shopping Complex was originally leased in the name of a firm consisting two partners, and as Nageswara Rao, one of the partners of the firm, was not able to carry on business due to financial difficulties and indifferent health, at his request the Corporation accepted to transfer the shop in favour of Smt.Madhavi who is none other than another partner in the business being carried on from Shop No.49. On facts, the said matter is totally different and therefore the same cannot be a ground to invalidate action of Corporation. 10. The Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. However, it is made clear that Corporation in law is duty bound to conduct public auction to lease out the shops if original lessee does not want to continue, and if original lessee still wants to continue business putting an end to all illegal obligations which may arise under alleged agreements entered into by original lessee, option shall be given to original lessee whether to continue in shop or not. If for any reason original lessee does not want to continue, such shops shall be put to auction, it is open to the Corporation to evict the transferees of the shops forthwith. 11. With the above observations, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.