Judgment :- 1. Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of prohibition, restraining the respondents from shifting the vegetable market from Poonga market, Namakkal to Varasandhai, Namakkal, except by due process of law. 2. Petition has been filed by the registered association of vegetable vendors who are running their business of selling of vegetables in the market which is proposed to be shifted. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the market is running since 1985, and permanent construction has been raised to facilitate the vendors to sell vegetables in the market. It is the case of the petitioner that in order to facilitate, the Municipality has spent huge amount of money to facilitate the running of vegetables market. 4. That without any basis the 1st respondent is trying to shift the present market to Varasandhai which is situated 2 to 3 kms from the present place, thus making it inconvenient to the general public. 5. That representations have also been made against shifting of the market. 6. On consideration this court finds that the writ petition as framed is not competent, as this court cannot issue a writ in the nature of prohibition against exercise of statutory power by the Municipality under the District Municipality Act, 1920. It cannot be disputed that District Municipality in the public interest can shift the market, therefore this court cannot prohibit the decision of the Municipality to shift the market from one place to another, on presumption that the decision will be implemented without following due process of law. The law on the other hand stipulate that authority in exercise of the power would be presumed to do it in accordance with procedure of law unless proved otherwise. 7. This court has limited jurisdiction to see that the action finally taken in accordance with law. This court can interfere with a decision in case petitioner is able to show that the final decision to shift the market is not in consonance with law or is otherwise violative of provisions of law of Constitution. Certainly no presumption can be drawn that the action of the respondents would be taken contrary to the law, as is sought to be projected. 8. Certainly no presumption can be drawn that the action of the respondents would be taken contrary to the law, as is sought to be projected. 8. Faced with this situation the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that in para 6 of the counter it has been pointed that decision has been taken to close the market and shift it to some other place. It therefore cannot be said that the petitioner has no locus standi at this stage to seek a writ of prohibition; as the decision taken is contrary to Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipality Act, 1920. This contention again deserves to be noticed to be rejected. It cannot be presumed at this stage that before finally implementing the decision, procedure as laid down in Section 26 of the Act will not be followed. 9. Even otherwise inspite of counter filed, the petitioner has not challenged the decision either by filing a fresh writ by withdrawing it or by amending this writ petition. It is well settled law that the petitioner is to stand in his own legs and cannot take advantage of the weakness of the respondents. 10. No merits. Dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.