Judgment :- 1. Since, the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been heard together and a common order is being passed. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that identical issues had arisen for the consideration of this Court, relating to the leasing of shops, in Pethanaickenpalayam Town Panchayat, in W.P.No.5507 of 2012. This Court, by its order, dated 27.4.2012, in W.P.No.5507 of 2012, had dismissed the said writ petition, filed by the petitioner therein, seeking renewal of the lease, granted in his favour, for a further period of three years. 4. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said order, dated 27.4.2012, read as follows: "10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. The petitioner has not been in a position to show as to how he is entitled to the benefit of extension of lease, for a further period of three years in respect of Shop No.1, on payment of the enhanced lease amount, as per the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Nee.Thi.4) Department, dated 3.7.2007, in spite of the coming into existence of the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.181, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Nee.Thi.4) Department, dated 19.9.2008, restricting the lease period. 11. Further, from the records available, it is noted that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the shop in question, was only for a period of three years, upto 31.3.2012. In the notification, dated 3.6.2009, based on which the lease had been granted in favour of the petitioner, it had been made clear that the shop in question would be brought to public auction at the end of the lease period of three years. In the notification, dated 3.6.2009, based on which the lease had been granted in favour of the petitioner, it had been made clear that the shop in question would be brought to public auction at the end of the lease period of three years. Having participated in the public auction, agreeing to the terms and conditions prescribed in the notification, dated 3.6.2009, it would not be open to the petitioner to claim that the lease granted in his favour should be extended, for a further period of three years, on payment of the enhanced lease amount. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 5. As such, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent. 7. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the above writ petitions, in view of the earlier order, dated 27.4.2012, made in W.P.No.5507 of 2012. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.2,2,2,2 and 2 of 2012 are closed.