Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr. V. R. Thangavelu, learner counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Ms. V. M. Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first Respondent. Notice to the Respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed with in view of the nature of order passed. 2. The petitioners have been granted licence by the first Respondent Town Panchayat for running a Poultry Meat Stall respectively at Gandhipuram, Rakkathal Kuttai, Rayampalayam and Ganwar Street, Avinashi Town Panchayat and the have paid their licence fee to the first Respondent. The licence is valid upto 31.03.2014. 3. However, on 15.06.2012, the first Respondent issued a notice for auction to put up four new poultry meat stalls at Ward No.2, Ward No.5, Ward No.8 and Ward No.18 respectively. Conditions have been specified for participating in the said auction, to be held on 22.06.2012. The auction notice is based on the Resolution passed by the Council of the first Respondent Town Panchayat in its Resolution No.120 dated 11.06.2012. The said Resolution is challenged in this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Resolution passed by the Council of the first Respondent Town Panchayat and the auction notice issued by the first Respondent affects the right of the petitioners right to livelihood and their business will be seriously affected if the new stalls are put up. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners have not stated in which ward their stalls are situated and there is no document to support the above plea. However, in the affidavit, they pleaded that if the new stalls are put up, their business will be affected. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader based on the documents available on record submits that even as per the auction notice, the auction should have been conducted on 22.06.2012. The notice of auction was served on the petitioners on 21.06.2012 and therefore the petitioners are well aware of the auction proceedings. However, at the last minute, they are attempting to stall the confirmation of the auction. She seriously opposed the grant of any sort of order. 7. In the writ petition, no specific provision of law is said to have been breached by the first Respondent either in passing the Resolution or in issuing the auction notice. The only plea appears to be that the petitioners' right to livelihood has been affected. She seriously opposed the grant of any sort of order. 7. In the writ petition, no specific provision of law is said to have been breached by the first Respondent either in passing the Resolution or in issuing the auction notice. The only plea appears to be that the petitioners' right to livelihood has been affected. 8. On going through the licence fee receipt, there appears to be no specific clause that the first Respondent will refrain from putting up new stalls depending on the need or necessity. Therefore, the question of estoppel does not arise at all. The learned counsel for the petitioners now pleads that the grievance of the petitioners will be met if a direction is issued to the District Collector to consider the petitioners' claim for revocation or modification of the Resolution and in this regard, the petitioners will give a representation, for his consideration. 9. In view of the above plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the relief sought for is declined. The writ petitioners are at liberty to give representation to the District Collector, who shall consider the said claim on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 10. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.