Judgment 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to restore possession of Shop Nos. 14 and 16, at the daily market, in the respondent Municipality, to the petitioner and to pay the damages for the loss sustained by the petitioner. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been granted the lease for shop Nos. 14 and 16 in the daily market, belonging to the respondent, for the period from 10.08.2001 to 31.03.2004. The shops were allotted to the petitioner through public auction, held on 18.06.2001. Even though the petitioner had complied with all the formalities, including the payment of rent, the respondent Municipality had locked and sealed the shops, on 06.07.2003. The respondent had sent two notices, on 11.06.2003, as if the petitioner had not paid the arrears of rent of Rs.5,589/-, in respect of Shop No. 14 and Rs.9,720/-, in respect of Shop No.16. Even before the notice had been served on the petitioner, the respondent Municipality had locked the shops. Since the action of the respondent in locking the shops is against the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Municipality that the Shop Nos. 14 and 16 in the daily market, belonging to the respondent Municipality, had been leased out to the petitioner for the period of three years, from 10.08.2001 to 31.03.2004, through the public auction held on 18.06.2001. However, since the petitioner had not paid the rent for several months for the said shops, inspite of the remainders sent by the Municipality, by a resolution of the Municipal Council in Agenda No.533, dated 30.05.2003, the petitioner had been instructed to settle the arrears of rent to the respondent Municipality, within a period of fifteen days. However, since the petitioner had not complied with the instructions issued by the respondent Municipality, the shops had been taken over and they were handed over to TASMAC, on 211. 2003, for running a wine shop, as per the Government instructions. Further, the materials removed from the shops had been handed over to the petitioner. 4. However, since the petitioner had not complied with the instructions issued by the respondent Municipality, the shops had been taken over and they were handed over to TASMAC, on 211. 2003, for running a wine shop, as per the Government instructions. Further, the materials removed from the shops had been handed over to the petitioner. 4. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the respondent Municipality may be permitted to proceed against the petitioner, for the collection of the arrears of rent to be paid by the petitioner, in respect of shop Nos. 14 and 16 in the daily market belonging to the respondent Municipality. 5. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as respondents, this Court is of the considered view that no sufficient cause or reason has been shown for this Court to grant the relief, as prayed for in the Writ Petition, at this stage. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, it is open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner for the collection of arrears of rent, in respect of the shops in question, in accordance with law. No costs.