Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the first and the second respondents. No appearance on behalf of the third respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to allot shop Nos.1 and 2, at Dharapadavedu-Chittoor bus stand, Vellore, to the petitioner, on priority basis, pursuant to the Resolution No.163, dated 31.12.2007, passed by the then Vellore Municipality, at the rate fixed by the Government. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner has been running a Hotel, in the name and style of Lakshmi Vilas Hotel, in a building situated at the Chittoor bus stand belonging to the erstwhile III Grade Vellore Municipality, presently the Vellore Corporation. The building in question had been leased out to the petitioner, in the year, 1988. The lease had been granted to him, initially, for a period of one year. From the year, 1990, the lease had been granted, for a period of three years, on an increase of 15% of the rent, every year. The petitioner had been in continuous possession of the building in question and he had been paying the rent, on a regular basis, without any default. The petitioner had also been living in the said building, with his wife and his three children. While so, the petitioner had made several representations, to the erstwhile Vellore Municipality, to carry out the necessary repairs in the building in question, as its roof had started leaking. However, there was no proper response from the said Municipality. 4. It had been further stated that, on 13.1.1997, the petitioner had submitted a further representation, before the first respondent. Based on the said representation, a Resolution, dated 30.5.1998, had been passed by the Vellore Municipality, for the reconstruction of the Hotel building and for leasing out the new building, in favour of the petitioner. However, the existing lease in favour of the petitioner, had been renewed by the proceedings, dated 26.2.1999. While so, by an order, dated 1.3.2005, the Municipality had asked the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.8726 of 2005, seeking to direct the respondent therein to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner, for a further period of three years. While so, by an order, dated 1.3.2005, the Municipality had asked the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.8726 of 2005, seeking to direct the respondent therein to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner, for a further period of three years. The said writ petition had been dismissed, by this Court, by its order, dated 15.3.2005. 5. It had been further stated that, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed a writ appeal, in W.A.No.1172 of 2005. The writ appeal had been allowed, by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 29.7.2005. The special leave petition filed by the Municipality, before the Supreme Court, had been dismissed. 6. It has been further stated that a Resolution, dated 31.5.2005, had been passed by the Municipality for demolishing the building in question. The writ petition had been filed, in W.P.No.13689 of 2005, before this Court, by one Ganesan, directing the respondent therein to take possession of the Hotel building. By an order, dated 25.4.2005, this Court had directed that the possession of the building could be taken, as prayed for by the petitioner in the said writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner had filed the writ appeal, in W.A.No.1455 of 2005, which had been heard, along with the writ appeal, in W.A.No.1172 of 2005. By a common order, dated 29.7.2005, the writ appeal filed by the petitioner, in W.A.No.1172 of 2005, had been dismissed. However, an order had been passed in the writ appeal, in W.A.No.1455 of 2005, holding that the petitioner could be evicted from the building in question only by a decree passed by a Civil Court, or by a statutory authority, as authorised by law. The special leave petition filed by the Municipality, before the Supreme Court, had been dismissed, on 28.11.2005. 7. It had been further stated that the Vellore Municipality had issued a notice to the petitioner, under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975, treating him as an unauthorised occupant. Even though a reply had been submitted by the petitioner, an order had been passed, by the Executive Officer, on 22.9.2006, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises, within a period of 14 days. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.37757 of 2006, before this Court. Even though a reply had been submitted by the petitioner, an order had been passed, by the Executive Officer, on 22.9.2006, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises, within a period of 14 days. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.37757 of 2006, before this Court. 8. It had been further stated that the petitioner had approached the Municipality stating that the building may be taken over by the Municipality, for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. However, the petitioner had prayed that he may be allotted a shop after the demolition and reconstruction of the building in question. By a Resolution, No.163, dated 31.12.2007, the request of the petitioner had been accepted. By the proceedings No.26, dated 28.3.2008, it had been mentioned that there were no arrears of lease amounts, payable by the petitioner. Based on the undertaking given by the petitioner to vacate the premises in question and in view of the Resolution No.163, dated 31.12.2007, the petitioner had handed over the possession of the building to the Municipality concerned. 9. It has been further stated that inspite of the representation sent by the petitioner, for the reconstruction and for the reallotment of the building, in favour of the petitioner, the second respondent had issued a tender notice, calling for tender, for leasing out the seven shops, constructed at Dharapadavedu – Chittoor bus stand. No building had been constructed for locating a Hotel, as promised by the Vellore Municipality. Inspite of the various requests made by the petitioner, the respondents had not allotted the shops, to the petitioner, for running the Hotel in the bus stand. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. COMMR OF CUSTOMS Vs. BUREAU VERITAS, (2005) 3 SCC 265 2. U.P. POWER CORPN. LTD., Vs. SANT STEELS & ALLOYS (P) LTD., (2008) 2 SCC 777 . 11. The learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the second respondent Municipal Corporation, had submitted that the Hotel in the building in question had, originally, belonged to the Dharapadavedu III Grade Vellore Municipality, which had been merged with the Vellore City Municipal Corporation. U.P. POWER CORPN. LTD., Vs. SANT STEELS & ALLOYS (P) LTD., (2008) 2 SCC 777 . 11. The learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the second respondent Municipal Corporation, had submitted that the Hotel in the building in question had, originally, belonged to the Dharapadavedu III Grade Vellore Municipality, which had been merged with the Vellore City Municipal Corporation. The building in question had to be demolished, as it was in a dilapidated condition. The necessary notice had been issued to the lessee. Thereafter, the entire structure had been demolished and a new building comprising of commercial shops, had been constructed. The Vellore City Municipal Corporation had to conduct an auction to lease out the shops, as per the Government Order. 12. The learned Advocate General appearing for the second respondent Municipal Corporation had further submitted that the lease notification had been published, fixing the date of auction, as 5.1.2012. However, pursuant to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, this Court had passed an order, staying the confirmation of the auction sale on shop Nos.1 and 2, at Dharapadavedu-Chittoor bus stand, Vellore, by way of the interim order passed in the present writ petition, on 4.1.2012. 13. It had been further stated that the necessary notices had been issued to the petitioner, by the Executive Officer, Dharapadavedu III Grade Vellore Municipality, under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975. Thereafter, the petitioner had been evicted, after he had been given an opportunity of hearing. The Resolution No.163, dated 31.12.2007, cannot be read in favour of the petitioner, as prayed for by him, as nothing had been stated in the said resolution, specifically, in favour of the petitioner. 14. It had been further stated that the petitioner had no right on the shop in question, as the shop cannot be allotted in favour of the petitioner, as per the prevailing Government Orders, which are binding on the Vellore City Municipal Corporation. 15. It had also been stated that the petitioner had not paid the arrears of rent, amounting to Rs.3,70,317/-, even after notices had been sent to him, for the settlement of the dues, as per the orders passed by this Court. 16. It had also been stated that the petitioner had handed over the building in question, as per the order of this Court, dated 5.12.2008, made in W.P.No.37757 of 2006. 16. It had also been stated that the petitioner had handed over the building in question, as per the order of this Court, dated 5.12.2008, made in W.P.No.37757 of 2006. Thereafter, the petitioner had withdrawn the said writ petition. After the petitioner had handed over the building, it had been demolished and a new building in question had been constructed. Since, the necessary open space had to be allowed for the benefits of the passengers, no building had been built for the purpose of vacating the Hotel. Since, it is open to the petitioner to take part in the tender-cum-auction, whenever it is held, for the allotment of the shops, it would not be open to him to claim that the shops bearing Nos.1 and 2, in the Dharapadavedu-Chittoor bus stand, Vellore, ought to be allotted to him. In fact, the Vellore City Municipal Corporation had been taking steps to lease out the shops in question, following the instructions issued by the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 3.7.2007. As such, the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 17. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits. 18. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that a Resolution No.163, dated 31.12.2007, had been passed by the Municipality concerned, resolving to reconstruct and to re-allot the Hotel building in question, to the petitioner. Further, it has not been shown that the said Resolution, dated 31.12.2007, would be binding on the respondent Corporation. Even otherwise, the respondent Corporation is expected to allot the shop, only by way of a public auction, as per the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 3.7.2007. 19. Even if the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner had been recorded, by this Court, in its order, dated 5.12.2008, in W.P.No.37757 of 2006, it cannot be put against the respondent Corporation, based on the principle of promissory estoppel, as claimed by the petitioner. 19. Even if the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner had been recorded, by this Court, in its order, dated 5.12.2008, in W.P.No.37757 of 2006, it cannot be put against the respondent Corporation, based on the principle of promissory estoppel, as claimed by the petitioner. In fact, no direction had been issued by this Court against the respondent Corporation, directing it to allot the shop, constructed in Dharapadavedu-Chittoor bus stand, Vellore, to the petitioner, without conducting a public auction. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.