JUDGMENT B. Padmaraj, A.C.J.—Heard the learned Counsel on either side and carefully perused the relevant case papers. 2. This is a writ petition filed by the Petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by way of public interest litigation. The Petitioners herein claim to be permanent residents of Bijapur and are running their business in the respective shops allotted to them in Lal Bahadur Sastry Market in Bijapur. The complaint of the Petitioners is, that an area measuring 5' x 10' and 10' x 10' situated nearby the vehicle parking space and water tank in Lal Bahadur Sastry Market is allotted in favour of the 4th Respondent by the 3rd Respondent in contravention of the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. It is also their complaint that the vacant space, which is allotted in favour of the 4th Respondent , is a part of the area which has been earmarked and used for parking of vehicles by the shop-owners of the Lal Bahadur Sastry Market and the general public. In view of such allotment, it is stated that there has been a lot of inconvenience to the general public. On these and other averments made in the writ petition the Petitioners have sought for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned allotment orders dated 25.2.2005 passed by the 3rd Respondent in favour of the 4th Respondent . They have also sought for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to preserve the said open space which was allotted in favour of the 4th Respondent for the purpose of parking of vehicles and not to allot the said open space to any persons. 3. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Court to the Respondent s, they have filed their response. The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by their separate statement of objections have contended inter alia that the area allotted to the 4th Respondent is near water tank which is not useful for parking of any vehicle as no one is allowed to park vehicles behind the water tank. It is stated that to provide a shop to the 4th Respondent who was a displaced person, in the old Shopping Complex the impugned allotment of space has been made. It is stated that to provide a shop to the 4th Respondent who was a displaced person, in the old Shopping Complex the impugned allotment of space has been made. Similar allotments to other occupants adjoining the present open space pursuant to the order made by this Court in the writ petition filed by them have been made by the Respondent No. 3. The Petitioners being the tenants of the shops in the complex constructed by the Respondent No. 3 have filed this writ petition on account of the business rivalry and that no public interest is involved in the present writ petition. It is also stated that the said space was allotted on 25.2.2005 and the 4th Respondent has already put up construction of the shop by investing huge amount of money and that the Petitioners have filed the present writ petition about six months after the allotment. 4. A rejoinder has also been filed by the Petitioners wherein they have denied that the present writ petition has been filed on account of any business rivalry. They would further contend that the 4th Respondent was allotted shop previously which the 4th Respondent has sold it to some other person and subsequently the present allotment has been made which is in total violation of the provisions contained in the statute. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, while reiterating the grounds taken in the writ petition has contended that the allotment made in favour of the 4th Respondent is in clear contravention of the provisions contained in Section 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act and that further, the space allotted to the 4th Respondent is one which was earmarked for parking space. She therefore, contends that on account of such allotment not only the public are inconvenienced but the same is in contravention of or in violation of the statute. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand, have contended that the space in question was never used as parking space and on the other hand just to accommodate the 4th Respondent who is a displace person, the same has been granted just like the grant made in favour of the other displaced persons. They also contend that no public interest is involved in the writ petition filed by the Petitioners. They also contend that no public interest is involved in the writ petition filed by the Petitioners. With regard to the contention that there was an earlier allotment made in favour of the 4th Respondent , they contend that no doubt that there was such an allotment but subsequently, the same has been surrendered and the present allotment has been made pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the writ petitions in favour of the 4th Respondent as a displaced person. 7. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners herein are running their business in the respective shops allotted to them in the very same market where the space in question has been allotted to the 4th Respondent . The Petitioners do not dispute the fact that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court some of the displaced persons have been allotted space in the new market and it is not in dispute that the 4th Respondent is one such persons. When the space in question has been allotted to the 4th Respondent as a displaced person just like any other displaced person, no exception could be taken with regard to the Respondent No. 4 with regard to the allotment made in his favour. Even the Petitioners have been allotted such space and it is not their case, that when the space had been allotted to them, the provisions of Section 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act has been complied with. It appears that totally out of humanitarian consideration certain displaced persons have been allotted space in the new market. No doubt it was sought to be contended that the space allotted to the Respondent No. 4 was earmarked as parking space in the new market. Apart from the fact that no such material has been placed on record by the Petitioners, the Respondents have clearly stated that it was never used as a parking space at any time. In fact, certain photographs which have been made available for our perusal would show that the said open space over which a structure has been built by the 4th Respondent would show that it was situated behind water tank and it could not have been used as a parking place. On the other hand, the parking space appears to be on the other side of the water-tank. On the other hand, the parking space appears to be on the other side of the water-tank. We therefore find no public interest is involved in the present writ petition filed by the Petitioners. Though not on account of business rivalry but due to certain other extraneous reasons the Petitioners who are also running their shops in the same market have filed this writ petition to achieve their personal ends. 8. Therefore, having given our anxious consideration to the entire matter in issue, we are of the clear view that no public interest is involved in the instant writ petition filed by the Petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition filed by way of public interest litigation cannot be maintained and it is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.