Judgment :- Common Order: P. Sathasivam, J. In all these writ petitions, the challenge relates to Rule 7(3) of the Application, Allocation and Assessment of Regularisation Fee (Chennai Metropolitan Area) Rules, 1999 as amended upto 24.04.2002, as illegal and null and void in so far as claiming 18% interest for regularisatiion fees. 2. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the above writ petitions, the First Bench of this Court in 2006 (4) CTC 483 (Consumer Action Group vs. The State of Tamil Nadu) considered the constitutional validity of the amended provisions of Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 as well as the Application, Allocation and Assessment of Regularisation Fee (Chennai Metropolitan Area) Rules, 1999. After considering the relevant provisions and the Scheme at length, their Lordships, after quashing the relevant Rules, issued several directions. In this regard, it is useful to refer the relevant directions and conclusions therein. " 32. In the result, in view of the foregoing discussion, we pass the following order: (i)The amendments to Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 by Amending Acts 31 of 2000, 17 of 2001 and 7 of 2002 and the consequential amendments to the Application, Allocation and Assessment of Regularisation Fee (Chennai Metropolitan Area) Rules, 1999 as far as applicable to the constructions made after 22.02.1999 are hereby declared ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. All orders are regularisation of such buildings (constructed after 28.02.1999) passed pursuant to the amending provisions stand quashed. (ii) to (xii) ..... (xiii)The regularisation fee collected should be kept aside in a separate fund and not to be merged with the general account of the State of Tamil Nadu or its Agencies and this fund shall be used to alleviate the sufferings of the affected citizens in consultation with the Monitoring Committee. (xiv) & (xv) .... " 3. It is not in dispute that in view of the above decision of the First Bench, the respondents are not permitted to claim interest as per the amended provisions. In fact, Mr. J. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for CMDA, second respondent herein submitted that after the above cited order of the First Bench, the CMDA is following the fees structure as that was prevailing in 1999. The above statement is hereby recorded. 4. In fact, Mr. J. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for CMDA, second respondent herein submitted that after the above cited order of the First Bench, the CMDA is following the fees structure as that was prevailing in 1999. The above statement is hereby recorded. 4. In view of the order of the First Bench referred to above and in the light of the stand taken by the CMDA, we are of the view that no further adjudication is required in these writ petitions. However, it is made clear that if any amount is paid by way of interest pursuant to the interim order of this Court, it is for the respective parties to make a representation to the CMDA and it is for the CMDA to pass appropriate orders, if the same is permissible in terms of the decision referred to above. With the above observation, all the writ petitions are closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.