Judgment :- The writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging G.O.Ms.No.67 issued by the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 3. 1999, and the consequential proceedings issued by the respondents based on the said Government order as being illegal and ultravires the constitution of India. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.67 of the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 3. 99, issued by Govt. of Tamil Nadu Rural Development and Local Administration Department had been subsequently, superceded by the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 of the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 26. 2004. It has also been submitted by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents that G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007 has also been issued subsequently. 3. It has also been pointed out that in similar circumstances, this Court had passed an order, dated 3. 2007, in W.P.No.9158 of 1999, which reads as follows: "The prayer made in the writ petition is to declare G.O.Ms.No.67, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03. 1999 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu Rural Development and Local Administration Department is without authority, of law illegal and violative of Article 14 and 19 (i) (g) of the Constitution of India in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.165, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 26. 2004 granting permission to transfer the lease in favour of the legal representatives and also transfer made prior to the date of G.O.Ms.No.67, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 3. 1999. Hence, the prayer made in the writ petition has become in fructuous. The same view has been taken in batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.6359 to 6368 of 1999 etc., batch, dated 27. 1999. 3. Hence, the writ petition has become in fructuous. No costs" 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. In view of the above, these writ petitions have become in fructuous. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed as in fructuous. No costs.