ORDER 1. In the instant case the petitioners have presented this writ petition seeking a direction directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to reoccupy the space in their bunk shops which they were occupying prior to collapse of Tippu Sultan Fort Wall, wherein the petitioners were running petty business. 2. The only grievance made out by the petitioners is that they were carrying on petty business earlier to collapse of Tippu Sultan Fort Wall. The falling of the said Wall has affected their petty business. The contention of the petitioners is that now that the respondents have rebuilt the said compound wall, they may be permitted to run their bunk shops which they were running earlier. In spite of their request, the second respondent-Corporation has failed to consider their request. The non consideration of their request has necessitated the petitioners to present the instant writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as also the learned Counsel appearing for —the respondents. 4. The learned Counsel for the second respondent submitted that there is no provision under the Corporation Act, for according permission to run any business or install bunk shops on the foot path. It is contended that they have not permitted any bunk shops to carry on petty business in the foot path and therefore the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. 5. I find some force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the second respondent. After careful perusal of the relevant provisions of the Statute/Corporation Act, it is seen that there is no provision as such, providing persons to run bunk shops on the foot path. Therefore, as the statute does not provide for such permission, the question of second respondent considering the request of the petitioners to run the bunk shop on the foot path in question does not arise. The petitioners are not entitled for the relief as a matter of right. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the petitioners is misconceived. 6. In view of what is stated above, the writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioners from making necessary applications as and when the notification is issued by the second respondent to run the bunk shops. 6. In view of what is stated above, the writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioners from making necessary applications as and when the notification is issued by the second respondent to run the bunk shops. If such applications are filed, the second respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. Petition dismissed.