Judgment : 1. Writ Petition Nos.1336, 1337, 2435, 2436, 3045 and 3960 of 2010 are filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.0209/2010/R3, dated 8.1.2010 and quash the same consequently direct the first respondent to extend the lease period for 3 years (i.e.) upto 31.3.2012. 2. Writ Petition No.3985 of 2010 is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notification issued by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.12974/2009/A7 dated 13.2.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to extend the lease period for 3 years (i.e.) upto 31.3.2012 as per the orders of the Government issued in G.O.(Ms.)No.78 MAWS dated 25.5.2009. 3. Writ Petition No. 4523 of 2010 is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.A6/300/2010 dated 10.2.2010 and quash the same in so far as it relates to Sl.No.2 relating to the auction which is scheduled to be held on 4.3.2010 for the right to collect fees from the Mattrapalli Weekly market and direct the respondents to extend the said right in favour of the petitioner for the second year and third year on 5% increase for the successive years up to 31.3.2012. 4. Writ Petition No.4752 of 2010 is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to renew for remaining 2 years (i.e.) 2010-11 and 2011-12 for item 5 and 10 as per G.O.(Ms.)No.78MAWS dated 25.5.2009. 5. Writ Petition No.4753 of 2010 is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to renew for remaining 2 years (i.e.) 2010-11 and 2011-12 for item 8 and 9 as per G.O.(Ms.)No.78MAWS dated 25.5.2009. 6. Writ Petition Nos.5009, 5108 and 5181 of 2010 are filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent made in Na.Ka.No.9659/2009/A1 dated 13.2.2010 pertaining to Item No.1, 2 and 11 respectively in the notification and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to extend the license/lease period upto 31.3.2012 in accordance with G.O.(Ms.)No.78 MA and WS Department dated 25.5.2009. 7. 7. Petitioner in each one of the cases is a licencee for the period of one year (i.e.) 20092010 for the works as mentioned below:- Sl.No. W.P.No. Work Lease period Relief sought for 1 1336 of 2010 For collection at pay and use toilet at the Daily Market, Mettuplayam Road 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 2 1337 of 2010 For collection of fee from the Vendors at the Daily Market, Mettupalayam Road and also for the parking Vehicles for the year 2009-2010 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 3 2435 of 2010 For collection of fee at Pay and Use Toilet at Panneer Selvam Flower Market, Coimbatore 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 4 2436 of 2010 For collection of Entry Fee to the Vehicles at Sakthi Road Omni Bus Stand, Coimbatore 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 5 3045 of 2010 For collection of fee from the two wheelers and 4 wheelers parking at Corporation Hospital Complex at Rajaveedhi, Coimbatore 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 6 3960 of 2010 (i) For collection of fee at pay and use toilet at Vegetable market, Mettupalayam Road (ii) Collection of fee at pay and use toilet at Thadagam Road, Coimbatore 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 7 3985 of 2010 Collection of fee at pay and use toilet at Srinivasapuram, Coimbatore 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 8 4523 of 2010 Right to collect fees in the weekly market at Mattrapalli. Ten months ending 31.3.2010 (2009-2010) For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 9 4752 of 2010 Sl.No.5:- Collection of fee from two wheelers, buses, cars parking at Vellore Municipal old bus stand. Sl.No.10:- Collection of fee for usage of toilet No.3 near the cloak room at Vellore old bus stand 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 10 4753 of 2010 Sl.No.8:- Collection of fee for usage of toilet No.1 opposite to Corporation Office, at Vellore Municipal bus stand. Sl.No.10:- Collection of fee for usage of toilet No.3 near the cloak room at Vellore old bus stand 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 10 4753 of 2010 Sl.No.8:- Collection of fee for usage of toilet No.1 opposite to Corporation Office, at Vellore Municipal bus stand. Sl.No.9:- Collection of fee for usage of toilet No.2 Backside of Burma Bazaar Shops at Vellore Municipal bus stand 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 11 5009 of 2010 Collection of fees for Thyagi Kumarn Ground Shops, Coimbatore 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 12 5108 of 2010 Collection of usage fees at Ramar Kovil Street Market, Coimbatore 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 13 5181 of 2010 Collection of usage charges for Modern Toilet situate at Thyagi Kumaran Markekt. 1.5.2009 to 31.3.2010 (2009-2010) For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 8. According to the petitioners, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.78 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 25.5.2009 issued orders notifying the licence period as three years instead of one year with effect from 2009-2010. Contrary to the above said G.O., the respondent Corporations issued Notification calling for tenders for the above said works for three years from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2012 without considering the petitioners plea for extending the licence. Petitioner states that as per above G.O., fresh tenders for the above works should be called for from the year 20122013 only. Accordingly, the petitioner in each one of the cases are entitled to get extension of the licence period for another two years (i.e.) upto 20.11.2012 and the above writ petitions are filed seeking the reliefs as above. 9. The issue relates on the interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.78 Municipal Administration and and Water Supply Department 25.5.2009. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of G.O.Ms.No.78 Municipal Administration and and Water Supply Department dated 25.5.2009 reads as follows:- (TAMIL) i) (TAMIL) ii) (TAMIL) iii) (TAMIL) iv) (TAMIL) 4) (TAMIL) 5) (TAMIL) (emphasis supplied) 10. All the petitioners are successful bidders and have the licence to collect fee in respect of various facilities enumerated in paragraph 7 above. The licence period is 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 (i.e.) for a period of one year only and is to expire shortly. The Government has now changed its policy in respect of the licence period in G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. All the petitioners are successful bidders and have the licence to collect fee in respect of various facilities enumerated in paragraph 7 above. The licence period is 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 (i.e.) for a period of one year only and is to expire shortly. The Government has now changed its policy in respect of the licence period in G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. The said G.O.No.78 is now the bone of contention between the petitioners and the Department on an interpretation with regard to the period to which it will apply. 11. According to the learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, the licence should be extended for a further period in terms of para 3(i) of the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. According to him, the licence has to be extended for the second and third year on payment of the enhanced amount specified in the Government Order. It is also contended that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of para 3 of the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 as the G.O. applies to all auctions conducted in 2009-2010. Since the petitioners are successful bidders in an auction conducted for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010, they are entitled to automatic extension in terms of para 3(i) of the above G.O. Therefore, the Notification issued by the respondent corporations, viz., the corporation in each one of the writ petitions is contrary to the said G.O. Petitioners contend that the auction Notification should be set aside, and the petitioners should be given the benefit of extension invoking the para 3(i) of the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. 12. In the same manner Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for the other petitioners, while reiterating the above contention, relied upon the Division Bench Judgment in A.Srinivasan and 25 others vs. -The District Collector, Kancheepuram District reported in 2008(3) CTC 800 to contend that the petitioner who is having a subsisting licence is entitled to extension drawing analogy to the above said decision wherein the existing Virgin quarrying licence holders were given the benefit of extension of lease based on the amended rules. In that case, the virgin quarry lease holders were initially given five years period and after the amendment in the rules they were given the benefit of the extended period. In the same manner, the petitioners in all these cases are entitled to automatic extension of the licence after completion of one year period in terms of G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. 13. In the same manner, the petitioners in all these cases are entitled to automatic extension of the licence after completion of one year period in terms of G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. 13. Heard Sri S.Sivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate who appears for the State and submits that there is no ambiguity in the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 and the interpretation given by the petitioners is misconceived and does not stand to reason as the pith and substance of the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 is in modification of the earlier policy. He pointed out that, earlier, the auction was conducted for grant of licence for a period of one year. This was in vogue in respect of town panchayat and municipality and corporation as well. Thereafter, the Government took a policy decision to change the period of licence from one year to three years for administrative reasons. In furtherance to this object G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 19.9.2008 was issued in respect of town panchayat and Municipality. The said G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 19.9.2008 came into effect with effect from 2009-2010. In the same lines, the Government issued the present G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. In the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009, it has been clearly indicated that the three years period is to be followed, keeping in line with G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 19.9.2008. The petitioners have misconstrued the period in G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 on the impression that it applies to all licence of the year 2009-2010 without considering the fact that there is a specific exclusion in that the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 will not apply to all subsisting licence. It is clearly stated that subsisting licence holder will be bound by the terms and conditions as specified in the auction in which the petitioners were declared as successful bidders. The new terms and conditions will apply for the next period as in this case. In other words the one year period has to come to close and the three years period as per G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 will come into operation by a fresh auction. There is no automatic extension contemplated in the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. He pointed out that the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 specifically mandates three years period in contrast to the one year period which was in vogue earlier. There is no specific clause giving a right to the petitioners to seek extension of the one year licence which will come to a close on 31.3.2010. He pointed out that the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 specifically mandates three years period in contrast to the one year period which was in vogue earlier. There is no specific clause giving a right to the petitioners to seek extension of the one year licence which will come to a close on 31.3.2010. In the absence of specific indication, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of automatic extension. In any event, the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 is prospective and not retrospective. 14. Having considered the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief of extension of licence period interpreting the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 in the manner in which they want to for the following reasons:- (i) Though the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 specifically states that it will apply to all licence for the period 2009-2010, it specifically excludes the subsisting licence. Therefore, the petitioners stand excluded. It will apply to licence that will be granted after issuance of the Government Order. (ii) Para 3 (iii) of the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 states that the auction should be conducted for three years period meaning thereby that it will operate in the future. The auction, therefore, will be for a three year period and not one year as in the case earlier. There is no question of auction if extension is contemplated. Since it is a three year licence auction, extension does not arise. (iii) The policy decision of the Government was a change from the previous position inasmuch as the licence which has been granted for a period of one year was modified to three years as in the case of town panchayat and municipality in G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 19.9.2008. In view of the specific wording in para 3 of G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 which excludes all subsisting licence holders, the question of subsisting licence holders seeking extension does not arise. Para 3 of the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 is emphatic that the existing licence holders are bound by the terms and conditions on which the licence was granted, which in effect means that the petitioners whose licence ends by 31.3.2010 are not entitled to seek extension. At the time of auction, and confirmation earlier, there is no condition that the licence will be extended for a further period. Their licence term is fixed (i.e.) from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010. At the time of auction, and confirmation earlier, there is no condition that the licence will be extended for a further period. Their licence term is fixed (i.e.) from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010. (iv) The direction issued in the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 clearly states that all terms and conditions should be suitably amended to be incorporated in the licence conditions to be applied to the licence to be granted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. Hence, it is clear that the three year period is a change in the policy and there is no specific clause for extension of the subsisting licence. (v) The plea of the petitioners that the terms and conditions will apply to all the licence of the year 2009-2010 cannot be accepted on the well stated principle that the Government Orders and Rules have to be read prospectively and not retrospectively unless there is a specific indication in the said G.O., that it will operate retrospectively. In the present case, there is a specific clause in para 3 of the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 that it will not apply to the subsisting licence, and hence it is prospective in nature. This view stands fortified by the decisions of Courts and a few are cited hereunder:- (i) N.T.Devin Katti vs. - Karnataka Public Service Commission and others reported in (1990)3 SCC 157 and (ii) M/s.Kusumam Hotels (P) Ltd., - vs. -Kerala State Electricity Board reported in A.I.LR. 2008 Supreme Court 2796. Para 17 of the decision reads as follows:- "17. It is a well settled principle of law that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies to the State. It is also not in dispute that all administrative orders ordinarily are to be considered prospective in nature. When a policy decision is required to be given a retrospective operation, it must be stated so expressly or by necessary implication. The authority issuing such direction must have power to do so. The Board, having acted pursuant to the decision of the State, could not have taken a decision which would be violative of such statutory directions. 15.5.1999 was fixed as the cut-off date by the Board. It, by itself, could not have done so. But the State for issuing the GO dated 26.9.2000 could have fixed the said cut-off date on its own. 15.5.1999 was fixed as the cut-off date by the Board. It, by itself, could not have done so. But the State for issuing the GO dated 26.9.2000 could have fixed the said cut-off date on its own. We although do not agree that by granting retrospectivity to the said order, the entirety of the Government Order should be set aside the same or per se would be held to be unreasonable, but what we mean to say is that it could be given effect to only from the date of the order, i.e., prospectively and not from an anterior date, i.e.,, retrospectively." (vi) Even assuming that the wording in G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 indicates that it applies to the licence of the year 2009-2010, in view of the exclusion clause in respect of subsisting licence, the petitioners cannot claim any benefit under the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. They bound by the terms and conditions on which their licence was granted and they have acted upon it. 15. Insofar as the contention raised by Thiru AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel placing reliance on 2008(3) CTC 800 (cited supra) is concerned, it will not apply to the facts of the present case for the following reasons:- (i) The said case relates to the mines and minerals and the lease was granted in respect of virgin areas where quarrying operation was not done previously. On going through the facts of the said case, it appears that the petitioners were successful bidders in respect of stone quarry and the lease deed was executed on 5.6.1997 and registered and it was extended for a period of five years from June, 1996 to June, 2002. The lessee had to develop the area before putting it into commercial production. As it was a virgin quarry, they could not utilise the lease for the full lease period and therefore, they sought for extension of lease period by way of a representation stating that the rules were amended extending the period to ten years as against five years. The Government rejected the application for extension of the lease period after five years stating that the amended sub rule will apply only to virgin areas and since the petitioners have already started the quarrying operation they cannot claim benefits stating that it is a virgin quarry. The Government rejected the application for extension of the lease period after five years stating that the amended sub rule will apply only to virgin areas and since the petitioners have already started the quarrying operation they cannot claim benefits stating that it is a virgin quarry. In the said decision, the Court came to conclusion that the amended rule should apply to all virgin quarries. In the present case, it is a case of licence issued for one year by public auction. There is difference between grant of lease and licence. The licence is given the right to collect toll, fee, etc. It is different from quarrying lease. (ii) Factually the petitioners herein are licencees to collect fee from various users of public premises or property. The town panchayat, municipality, corporation get revenue out of the auction conducted in the above said manner. Therefore, as and when the period is over, they are entitled to fix a new period consistent with the Government policy. There is no part played by the licencee in developing the infrastructure as in the case of the mining quarrying operation. On facts there is no similarity between a licencee in the present case and the quarrying lease holder in the Division Bench Judgment. Lease relates to property right over a period whereas in the case of licence, the right is given only to collect fee or toll as the case may be. Even on this differentiation, the decision of the Division Bench will not apply to the facts of the present case. 16. A clarification was issued by Letter(Ms.)No.47 dated 5.3.2010. To this, serious objection was raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners stating that the G.O. cannot be amended by way of letter, rightly so. This response shows the knee-jerk reaction on the part of the authority concerned. Clarification if any could have been issued only by way of an amendment and not by a letter. In any event, this Court chooses to ignore the letter dated 5.3.2010 as the inclusion contained in the letter dated 5.3.2010 does not change the character and substance of the G.O. The wordings in the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 is clear and specific. 17. For all the above stated reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioners. All the writ petitions are dismissed. 17. For all the above stated reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioners. All the writ petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.