Judgment :- 1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent passed in Na.Ka.No.3180/01/A4 dated 10.7.2002, received on 20.7.2002, and order dated 1.8.2002, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from in any manner interfering with the peaceful running of Cycle Stand under the name and style of "ANNA MITHIVANDI NILAYAM" at No.4D/3, Cuddalore Main Road, Panruti. 2. None appears on behalf of the respondents. 3. Petitioner claims to be a running of a small cycle stand in Cuddalore Main Road, Panruti in a site owned by a third person with whom he has entered into a lease agreement. The respondent municipality initially took action to remove the cycle stand. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation for grant of licence which was rejected referring to Section 270(c) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act by proceeding dated 2.5.2001 that was challenged in W.P.No.10196 of 2001 before this Court and the order was set aside holding as follows:- "(5.) Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following observations: It is open to the petitioner to apply for a proper licence in terms of section 270(E) and it is for the authorities to consider the same on merits. In the event of the authorities contemplating removal of the present Cycle stand, that would be done only after issuing prior notice to the petitioner, as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. (6.) Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is ordered and the respondents are directed not to take any further action without complying with the provisions of law. Consequently, the connected W.M.Ps. are closed." 4. Since the petitioner did not make any application, to get the licence as contemplated under the Act, a notice under Section 270(E) of the Act has been issued on 10.7.2002. Thereafter, petitioner gave a representation on 12.7.2002 seeking grant of licence. This was considered and rejected by the Commissioner of the respondent Municipality stating that the Municipality is maintaining a stand and that has been leased out by way of auction. The petitioners cycle stand is causing loss to the respondent municipality. Hence, the request of the petitioner for granting licence to run a cycle stand cannot be granted. 5. The said order has been challenged in this writ petition on various factual aspects. 6. The petitioners cycle stand is causing loss to the respondent municipality. Hence, the request of the petitioner for granting licence to run a cycle stand cannot be granted. 5. The said order has been challenged in this writ petition on various factual aspects. 6. At the time of admission, on 8.8.2002, this Court granted interim stay in W.P.M.P.No.47775 of 2002 subject to the following condition:- “Interim stay on condition the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.1000/- by way of annual license fee within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the stay granted will get automatically vacated. Notice.” 7. The first respondent has filed a counter-affidavit in the miscellaneous petition. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner has complied with the direction of this Court by remitting a sum of Rs.1,000/- by way of demand Draft No.728469 dated 12.8.2002 drawn on State Bank of India, Panruti Branch. No counter has been filed in the writ petition till date. 8. On going through the grounds it is clear that the petitioners main plea as against the impugned order is on factual aspects for grant of licence. Petitioner also pleads business rivalry by other persons. Such plea will have to be canvassed by the petitioner before the Council by way of appeal as against the order passed by the Executive Authority in terms of Section 322(1)(c) of the Act, which reads as follows:- “322. Appeals from executive authority to council:- (1) An appeal shall lie to the council from- (a)xxx (b)xxx (c)any order of the executive authority granting or refusing a licence or permission” 9. The legal plea raised by the petitioner in the grounds that the name of business, namely, cycle stand cannot be classified as cart-stand (vide Section 270-E of the Act) and that the impugned order is passed by an authority, who is not competent to decide the claim for licence, cannot be countenanced at this point of time, as the petitioner has given the application to the Commissioner for grant of licence in an application dated 13.7.2002 and that too based on the earlier order passed by this court referred to above. Therefore, the legal plea has no basis. 10. Therefore, the legal plea has no basis. 10. In so far as the issue relating to rejection of the claim for grant of license is concerned, since the factual dispute has been raised in this writ petition, this court is not inclined to go through the merits of the case except giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal to the Council in terms of the Section 322(1)(c) of the Act within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Council shall decide the issue on its own merits and in accordance with law including the claim of others, if any, for grant of licence, within two months thereafter. The period during which the writ petition has been pending from the date of admission on 8.8.2002 till the date of disposal shall be eschewed for the purpose of limitation. 11. The Writ Petition is ordered on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.