Judgment :- 1. The petitioner Association represented by its Secretary, Mr.C.S.Narayanan, has filed this writ petition for and on behalf of 16 lessees who claim to be running different shops in the Municipal bus stand shop building at Arani Municipality. 2. Since an objection was raised by the Court as to how the Association has filed the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that 16 lessees who claim the benefit of continuing in the said shop will pay the necessary Court Fee, permission was granted and accordingly, Court Fee was paid. 3. The lessees numbering 16, whose names are found in the affidavit were originally allotted the respective shops in the Municipal bus stand and they claim to be in occupation of the said shops pursuant to the lease granted to them for the year 2001 and they have renewed the lease from time to time. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader on instructions does not agree with the stand taken by the petitioner that all the 16 persons are lessees for the respective building. The Respondent Municipality wanted to demolish the old shops and reconstruct new one under IUDP Scheme. It is not disputed by the petitioner. 5. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit, the petitioner clearly admitted that the association members agreed to vacate the shops based on an oral undertaking given by the Respondents that after construction of the new building, the members of the association will be allotted the new shops. It is also stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit that all the 16 persons have vacated their respective shops and handed over vacant possession with the Respondent before 25.10.2010. It is also the stand of the 16 members of the petitioner association that they have been regularly paying lease amount even after 25.10.2010 i.e. after vacating the shop as a condition for renewal of the lease and in some cases the Respondent Municipality refused to receive the lease amount and in some cases they have in fact received the lease amount. According to the petitioners, their lease for the further period is still subsisting and therefore, the Respondent Municipality should not bring the 16 shops in public auction as per the resolution of the Municipality. It is also contended that the auction notice dated 9.4.2012 has been issued without proper resolution. 6. According to the petitioners, their lease for the further period is still subsisting and therefore, the Respondent Municipality should not bring the 16 shops in public auction as per the resolution of the Municipality. It is also contended that the auction notice dated 9.4.2012 has been issued without proper resolution. 6. The plea of no resolution and improper procedure in issuing notice for auctioning the shops has been denied in the counter affidavit. 7. The petitioner specifically plead that as per G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007, they are entitled to renew the lease period on payment of 15% over and above the existing lease amount once in the block period of three years. Therefore, on the expiry of the term in 2010, on payment of lease amount they will be entitled to continue till 2013. The auction prior to this period is bad and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on G.O.Ms.No.916, Rural Development cum Local Administration Department dated 15.6.1984 to say that existing leaseholders will be entitled to continue on the newly constructed shop. On this premises, the writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the Respondent. 9. The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the Respondent filed a counter affidavit and a reply to the counter was also filed by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit the specific stand of the Respondent is that in respect of new shop, as per G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007 for new shops auction alone is the procedure. The licence cannot be renewed. Paras 4(i) and (ii) read as follows:- " TAMIL ” 10. According to the Special Government Pleader, G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007 specifically provides that where the building has been demolished and reconstructed auction necessarily will have to be conducted in terms of sub-clause (i) of Paragraph 4 of G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007. She further stated that G.O.Ms.No.916, Rural Development cum Local Administration Department dated 15.6.1984 does not apply and is not in force in view of the subsequent G.O.(2D) No.85 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 19.7.2000, whereby G.O.Ms.No.916, Rural Development cum Local Administration Department dated 15.6.1984 has been rescinded. She further stated that G.O.Ms.No.916, Rural Development cum Local Administration Department dated 15.6.1984 does not apply and is not in force in view of the subsequent G.O.(2D) No.85 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 19.7.2000, whereby G.O.Ms.No.916, Rural Development cum Local Administration Department dated 15.6.1984 has been rescinded. The question of granting extension of lease to the existing leaseholders under any circumstances does not arise as the shops were vacated, demolished and newly constructed. 11. Considering the nature of controversy as above, this Court is unable to accept the plea of the petitioner for allotment of shop to the existing leaseholders on the ground that an oral undertaking was given by the Respondent that after reconstruction, the shops will be allotted to the existing leaseholders. There is no specific undertaking given in writing by the Respondent to allot the shops to the existing leaseholders after demolition and reconstruction. As the shops in question are newly constructed shops, G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007 will come into operation. It provides for grant of lease by way of public auction and not by any other method. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any specific Government Order which gives a right to the erstwhile leaseholders to seek allotment of the new shops without auction despite G.O.Ms.No.92,Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007. When there is no provision for allotment of shops by way of extension of lease bye-passing the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.92 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007 which mandates public auction the petitioner's claim based on so called oral assurance is not justified and maintainable. 13. It is also pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader that the members of the petitioner association were in occupation of the shops right from 2001 and even as per the records they have completed the full term of 9 years and therefore, the question of extending further benefit does not arise. The petitioner's counsel does not dispute this fact. In so for as three petitioners namely Ravichandran, Rajasekar and Thiyagarajan, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, no lease has been granted in their favour, however this is disputed by the petitioner's counsel. It is for the said petitioners to work out their right if any as per law. 14. The petitioner's counsel does not dispute this fact. In so for as three petitioners namely Ravichandran, Rajasekar and Thiyagarajan, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, no lease has been granted in their favour, however this is disputed by the petitioner's counsel. It is for the said petitioners to work out their right if any as per law. 14. In so for as the present case is concerned since G.O.Ms.No. 916, Rural Development cum Local Administration Department dated 15.6.1984, has already been rescinded by the subsequent G.O.(2D) No.85, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 19.7.2000. Further, G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007 mandates auction on the first occasion. In the present case the shops in question are newly constructed, after vacating the existing occupants. The question of renewal of lease does not arise. Further more, if one or other officer of the Respondent by mistake, oversight or even deliberately collected the lease amount from some of the members of the petitioner association even after they vacated the shop, it will not give them a right to seek extension of lease for the newly constructed shops. The officers who collected the amount even after the petitioners vacated the building did so against the interest of the Municipality and if it is proved correct, appropriate action as per law should be taken against such officers who encourage parties to go to Court armed with receipt issued against non-existing shops. They breed litigation at the cost of the Municipality and such conduct should be curbed. 15. G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007 has to be strictly interpreted. No authority of the Respondent Municipality can by an administrative action bye-pass the specific condition imposed in G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007. The collection of lease amount if any after the shop is vacated would be illegal, improper calling for suitable action against the said officer, as was done in the case of G.O.Ms.No.201 dated 20.10.2010. The said G.O.Ms.No.201 dated 20.10.2010 is self explanatory. 16. Therefore, for the above said reasons, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea for renewal of lease for further period or to set aside the auction notice. Accordingly, the relief sought for by the petitioner association in this writ petition is declined. The said G.O.Ms.No.201 dated 20.10.2010 is self explanatory. 16. Therefore, for the above said reasons, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea for renewal of lease for further period or to set aside the auction notice. Accordingly, the relief sought for by the petitioner association in this writ petition is declined. In so far as the plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that exemption should be given to the petitioner as in the in the case of G.O.Ms.No.201 dated 20.10.2010 is concerned, it will be necessary to point out that illegal orders cannot be perpetrated. As could be seen from the tenor of G.O.Ms.No.201 dated 20.10.2010 suitable action was directed to be taken against the officer who failed to file an appeal. The Government was compelled to pass such an order only to obey the order of Court. Hence similar relief cannot be granted as no relief can be granted based on the order passed earlier in G.O.201 dated 20.10.2010. 17. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012 are closed. 18. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that the amounts paid by the individual members of the petitioner association for the period for which they are not in occupation is now in the hands of the Respondent. Since it is held to be illegal, he prays for a direction to the respondent for return of the said amount. 19. The collection of lease amount by the Respondent from the members of the petitioner association for the period during which they are not in occupation, is illegal, not authorized by law. Accordingly, the individual concerned is entitled to make application to the Respondent for refund of the lease amount collected from them if it is paid after vacating the shop and the Respondent shall consider the claim of the petitioner, for refund on merits and as per the relevant provisions of law as expeditiously as possible.