JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner has invoked extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to implement resolution No. 1549 dated 29.04.2010, vide which, the petitioner was allowed to run tea stall on the southern side of new Shop No.2 in new bus stand, Dharapuram. 2. Passing of resolution is not disputed. Translated copy of resolution No.1549 dated 29.04.2010, passed by the third respondent reads as under: "The 23 Council members including Municipal Chairman and Deputy Chairman have sustained for the implementation of Resolution thereby flexing the Special Rule 5 for opening the following three more Tea Stalls in the shops existing inside the new Bus Stand for the sake of general public and passengers. Mr.K.S.Govindaraj, Council Member of Ward 16 and Mr.C.Varadaraj, Council Member of Ward No.28 have made objection over the aforesaid Resolution 1. Shop No.2 in the Southern side of the Bus Stand - Thiru. D.Balakrishnan, Lessee 2. Shop No.10 in the Southern side of the Bus Stand - Thiru. Sadhiq Batsha, Lessee 3. Shop No.17 in the Southern side of the Bus Stand - Thiru. Thangamuthu, Lessee The Resolution executed by allowing the Lessees to open Tea Stalls after enhancing the rent of Rs.500/- p.m. with effect from 01.05.2010." 3. Mr.Varadaraj, one of the ward members, being aggrieved by the Resolution, filed W.P.No.13939 of 2010, which was disposed of, being premature. The operative part of the order, passed in W.P.No.13939 of 2010, reads as under: "7. I have considered the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition on the ground that till the resolution is ratified by the authority concerned, it has no force. As on date, even according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the resolution passed in the council meeting was not ratified or approved by the authority, who has to do the same. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court before the resolution is ratified by the appropriate authority. 9. In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to grant the relief that has been sought for by the petitioner and the writ petition stands dismissed. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court before the resolution is ratified by the appropriate authority. 9. In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to grant the relief that has been sought for by the petitioner and the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the action of the fifth respondent, if the same is ratified by the authority concerned, if he chooses to do so. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that authority competent to ratify the resolution has, so far, not taken any steps to ratify the resolution, thereby, denying his right to run the tea stall. 5. It cannot be disputed that it is statutory obligation on the part of the third respondent to ratify resolution passed by it, so that it becomes enforceable. 6. The writ petition is allowed. Writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued to authority competent to ratify, directing it to take final decision on the resolution, referred to above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.