Judgment :- 1. The petitioners challenge the auction notification dated 26.11.2010 issued by the Madurai City Municipal Corporation and seek a consequential direction to allot shops in their favour in the newly constructed Central Market at Mattuthavani. BRIEF FACTS: 2. The petitioners were running vegetable shops as licensees under the Madurai City Municipal Corporation. Their shops were located at Central Market near Lord Meenakshi Ammal Temple. The Central Market was situated in a very busy locality and as such, a decision was taken by the Corporation to shift the vegetable market to Mattuthavani by providing alternative shops to the existing licensees. The Corporation has passed a resolution to that effect on 22.04.2010. 3. The Corporation has taken a decision to provide the shops in the newly constructed market at Mattuthavani and as per the said decision, the existing licensees shall pay the additional advance amount ranging from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- depending upon the area of the shop. The respondent, as per proceedings dated 06.05.2010, allotted the shops to the petitioners in the newly market complex and a direction was given to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- within a period of one week. The petitioners have paid the amount on 02.07.2010. However, they were not allotted the shops. In the meantime, the respondent published an auction notification proposing to auction the remaining shops. This made the petitioners to challenge the auction notification. 4. The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was stated that the petitioners have not deposited the amount within the time stipulated and as such, they were not allotted the shops along with others. According to the respondent, the petitioners were directed to pay the amount within one week along with the required documents. However, for the reasons best known to them, they have not deposited the money and it was only after considerable time, they have fulfilled the conditions. By that time, shops were allotted. The respondent further submitted that the Corporation is now taking steps to construct new shops near the market and after such construction, shops would be allotted to the petitioners. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 6. The petitioners were doing business earlier in the Central Market as licensees under the Corporation. The Corporation has taken a decision to shift the market to Mattuthavani, as the existing place was so inconvenient. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 6. The petitioners were doing business earlier in the Central Market as licensees under the Corporation. The Corporation has taken a decision to shift the market to Mattuthavani, as the existing place was so inconvenient. The Corporation has also taken a decision to allot the shops to the existing licensees. The petitioners were directed as per proceedings dated 06.05.2010 to deposit a sum of Rs.60,000/- within one week from the date of receipt of the proceedings. The petitioners were further directed to produce documents, such as, copy of the ration card and their photographs. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have complied with the conditions indicated in the proceedings dated 06.05.2010. The amount was deposited only on 02.07.2010. The counter-affidavit filed by the respondent shows that the documents were not submitted along with payment. When the petitioners have not complied with the terms and conditions of the order of allotment, it cannot be said that the respondent was at fault. The respondent has acted in the best possible manner by accommodating the petitioners. However, the petitioners have miserably failed to comply with the conditions as indicated in the proceedings dated 06.05.2010. Therefore, they cannot be heard to say that the Corporation was responsible for the state of affairs. The respondent, in their counter-affidavit, very categorically pointed out that the Corporation is now contemplating to construct additional shops and the petitioners would be allotted shops in the new complex. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submitted that the Corporation has taken all possible efforts to construct the shops and the construction would be commenced very soon. 8. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners have to wait till the construction of additional shops by the respondent. 9. The petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the subsequent notification dated 26.11.2010. It is not as if the petitioners were not given allotment. The respondent has given shops to all the existing licensees and it was only on account of the failure on the part of the petitioners, they were not given the shops. Therefore, I do not find any reason to quash the impugned notification. 10. It is not as if the petitioners were not given allotment. The respondent has given shops to all the existing licensees and it was only on account of the failure on the part of the petitioners, they were not given the shops. Therefore, I do not find any reason to quash the impugned notification. 10. The respondent is directed to take all possible measures to construct the additional shops at an early date and after such construction, shops should be allotted to the petitioners as indicated in the proceedings dated 06.05.2010. 11. The Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above observation. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.