Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.23214/05/B4, dated 05.10.2006 and to quash the same. Further, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a direction to the respondents in allowing her to continue in possession of the premises at C.S. Colony, Third Cross Street, Indira Nagar, Chennai-600 020. 2. According to the petitioner, she is the allottee in respect of a vacant land measuring at about 100 sq.ft. for the purpose of running a Bunk Shop at C.S. Colony, Indira Nagar, Chennai. She has been running the Bunk for ten years. She has been allotted a house by the First Respondent/Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and she is residing at First Street, Indira Nagar, Chennai. She applied for the allotment of area measuring 100 sq.ft. belonging to 1 and 2 respondents during the year 2003. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents 1 and 2, pursuant to her application, by means of an order dated 08.04.2004 in Na.Ka.B4/26073/2003, called upon her to pay a sum of Rs.220/- per month up to the year 2004 and Rs.250/-per month from 01.04.2004, a sum of Rs.5000/- as penalty, Rs.2500/-towards past rent and Rs.2200/- towards advance. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the entire amount. The second respondent, as per order dated 21.05.2004 in Proceedings Na.Ka.No.B4/26073, acknowledged receipt of the amount paid by her and passed an order allotting the land measuring 10 x 10 = 100 sq.ft. for the purpose of running a Bunk Shop. 4. The petitioner in her affidavit has stated that she is running the Bunk Shop for the purpose of her livelihood. 1 and 2 respondents granted license to the petitioner with retrospective effect by way of collecting past arrears along with penalty. 5. The third respondent filed W.P. No. 40329 of 2005 for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1 and 2 respondents to prevent the petitioner either from encroaching or putting up any unauthorised construction in the Park land located abutting Third Lane, C.S. Colony, Indira Nagar, Adayar, Chennai-600 020. 6. 5. The third respondent filed W.P. No. 40329 of 2005 for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1 and 2 respondents to prevent the petitioner either from encroaching or putting up any unauthorised construction in the Park land located abutting Third Lane, C.S. Colony, Indira Nagar, Adayar, Chennai-600 020. 6. This Court, by an order dated 03.01.2006, dismissed the writ petition holding that when respondents 1 and 2 disposed of the representation of the third respondent, he was informed that the petitioner was allotted the said land and liberty was given to him to make a fresh representation on the ground that the place is only a vacant land earmarked for park. 7. Once again, the third respondent filed a writ petition directing respondents 1 and 2 to prevent the petitioner and her brother Chinnaraj, from encroaching or putting up any unauthorised construction in the park abutting Third Lane, C.S. Colony, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that the Second Respondent/ Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, referring to the order made in W.P.No.40329 of 2005 and the order of injunction made pending the writ petition, has passed an order on 05.10.2006 cancelling the order of allotment in favour of the petitioner. 9. A glance of the impugned proceedings of the Second Respondent/Board, dated 05.10.2006, makes it crystal clear that in reference No.2, a mention is made to the order of W.P.No.40329 of 2005, dated 03.01.2006 and in reference No.3, the order in W.P.No.7205 of 2006, dated 15.03.2006, is made mention of and further, the grant of injunction is mentioned in Paragraph No.2 that in the place allotted for Park, the grant of permission to start a Bunk has been injuncted by this Court. Accordingly, in the Board's place measuring 10 x 10 = 100 Sq.ft., the permission granted to start a Bunk by means of allotment has been cancelled. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2/Board submits that this Court, in its order made in W.P.No.40329 of 2005, while dismissing the writ petition, has granted liberty to the third respondent to approach the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board with fresh petition to the Board and also opined that, 'if the place in question is specifically ear-marked for construction of Schools, Playground etc. it cannot be allowed to an individual'. 11. it cannot be allowed to an individual'. 11. Continuing further, 46 allottees of Indira Nagar, Phase III, made representations to preserve the said land as vacant, or to divert the same as Park. A detailed representation was submitted to the Board mentioning that there is no place in the Scheme other than the land under reference. Also the Board was requested to take suitable action taking into account the stiff resistance made by the other allottees of the Scheme and the observation of this Court made in its order dated 03.01.2006, in W.P.No.40329 of 2005. The Second Respondent/Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has passed the impugned order dated 05.10.2006 cancelling the earlier allotment of 10 x 10 = 100 sq.ft. of place to run the Bunk and the said order does not suffer from any vice or illegality in the eye of law. 12. As a matter of fact, the Second Respondent/Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has passed the impugned order, dated 05.10.2006, after taking into consideration of the order dated 03.01.2006 passed in W.P.No.40329 of 2005 and also the stiff resistance made by the other allottees of the Scheme, representations made by the concerned and also bearing in mind of the interim order obtained in W.P.M.P.No.7915 of 2006 in W.P.No.7205 of 2006 etc. 13. Also, it comes to be known that the allotment to run the Bunk at 10 x 10 = 100 sq.ft. of land was cancelled as per the impugned proceedings dated 05.10.2006 and resultantly the Bunk erected by the petitioner has since been removed on 06.11.2006, the site is now kept vacant according to the counsel for Respondents 1 and 2. 14. On an over all analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case in an integral manner, this Court holds that the writ petition is devoid of merits. Consequently, it fails. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Connected M.P. is closed. No costs.