Judgment :- 1. Since, the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, they had been taken up together and a common order is being passed. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 3. It has been stated that, at some places, there are bridges across the river Cauvery for the use of those, who want to cross the river. However, at other places, boats are being used, for the purpose of crossing the river. Licenses are issued for plying the boats. One such license has been issued for plying the boats, between Poolampatty and Nerinjipettai. The license for plying the boats is issued by the Poolampatty town panchayat, by conducting a public auction. 4. It has been further stated that, for the period, from 1.7.2009 to 31.3.2012, the license had been given to one A.Alagudurai, son of Arumugam of Kupanoor, by the first respondent town panchayat. However, as some of the license conditions had been violated, the license granted in favour of A.Alagudurai had been cancelled, during the month of December, 2010. Thereafter, the second respondent had given the license, for the remaining period, from 1.11.2011 to 31.3.2012. The license had been issued to the second respondent for the balance period, by way of a public auction conducted by the first respondent. The auction had been confirmed in favour of the second respondent, on payment of a license fee of Rs.2,43,996/-. 5. It has been further stated that the first respondent had granted the license, in favour of the second respondent, for a very low amount and that the petitioner is willing to offer an annual license fee of Rs.4,00,000/-, if a fresh public auction is held, fixing the upset price of Rs.4,00,000/-. Thereafter, an offer had been made by the petitioner increasing the said offer to Rs.5,00,000/-. 6. It has been further stated that the first respondent Panchayat, by giving the license in favour of the second respondent, for the balance period, from 1.11.2011 to 31.3.2012 would be losing a substantial amount of public money. Therefore, the first respondent may be directed to accept the offer of the petitioner for granting the license in his favour. 6. It has been further stated that the first respondent Panchayat, by giving the license in favour of the second respondent, for the balance period, from 1.11.2011 to 31.3.2012 would be losing a substantial amount of public money. Therefore, the first respondent may be directed to accept the offer of the petitioner for granting the license in his favour. However, as the license period, from 1.11.2011 to 31.3.2012, had come to an end, during the pendency of the writ petition, in W.P.No.7850 of 2012, he had filed another writ petition, in W.P.No.9641 of 2012, challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 26.3.2012, by which the license granted in favour of the petitioner had been renewed, for a further period of one year, from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013, without resorting to the process of public auction. 7. It has been further stated that the renewal of the license, in favour of the second respondent, on his payment of Rs.2,80,600/-, for the period from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013, which is 15% more than the amount paid by the second respondent, for the earlier period, which was from 1.11.2011 to 31.3.2012, is arbitrary, illegal and void. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the license granted in favour of the second respondent, initially, for the period, from 1.11.2011 to 31.3.2012, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law, due to the offer of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, made by the petitioner. 9. It has also been contended that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 26.3.2012, granting the license in favour of the second respondent, on his payment of an additional sum of 15%, for a further period of one year, from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013, is arbitrary and illegal. It is also contrary to the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.181, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 19.9.2008. According to the said Government Order, a public auction could be held, for a period of 3 years, with an increase in 5% for every consecutive year. It is also contrary to the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.181, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 19.9.2008. According to the said Government Order, a public auction could be held, for a period of 3 years, with an increase in 5% for every consecutive year. As such, the order passed by the first respondent granting the license in favour of the second respondent, for the period from 1.11.2011 to 31.3.2012, and the order extending the license, for a further period of one year, from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013, are liable to be set aside, as they are arbitrary, illegal and invalid in the eye of law. 10. It has also been submitted that the impugned order passed in favour of the second respondent, granting the license to ply the boats, from Poolampatty and Nerinjipettai, across the river Cauvery, ought to be set aside, by this Court. Thereafter, a further direction may be issued to the first respondent, to conduct the auction fixing Rs.5,00,000/-, as the upset price, which is the amount offered by the petitioner. 11. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that the writ petitions filed by the petitioner are not maintainable, either in law or on facts and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed, in limini. 12. It has been further stated that the petitioner is a benami of one A.Alagudurai, whose license had been cancelled, by the first respondent, on the ground that he had not paid the license fee, within the time prescribed. 13. It had also been submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petitions, as he had not participated in the auction, held on 22.12.2010, for the period, from 1.1.2011 to 31.3.2012. It had also been stated that as per the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.181, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 19.9.2008, the first respondent had been empowered to renew the license granted in favour of the second respondent, without resorting to a fresh public auction. 14. It has been further stated that the second respondent and one Subramani had participated in the auction, held on 22.12.2010, for the license period, from 1.1.2011 to 31.3.2012. 14. It has been further stated that the second respondent and one Subramani had participated in the auction, held on 22.12.2010, for the license period, from 1.1.2011 to 31.3.2012. As the bid made by the second respondent, for a sum of Rs.3,05,000/-, was the highest he had been granted a license, from 1.1.2011 to 31.3.2012. However, it is not open to the petitioner, who had not participated in the auction, to challenge the license granted in favour of the second respondent. 15. It has also been stated that the renewal of the license in favour of the second respondent, for the period, from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013, on the second respondent paying an additional sum of 15% over and above the amount paid for the earlier period, cannot be questioned by the petitioner, as such renewal of the license had been granted by the first respondent, as per the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.181, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 19.9.2008. Therefore, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed. 16. 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 no locus standi to challenge the grant of license in favour of the second respondent, for plying the boats from Poolampatty and Nerinjipettai, across the river Cauvery. 17. When the petitioner had not participated in the public auction conducted by the first respondent, on 22.12.2010, for the period, from 1.1.2011 to 31.3.2012, it would not open to him to challenge the same, by way of writ petitions filed before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. Further, it is noted that the renewal of the license granted in favour of the second respondent, for the period, from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013, is based on the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.181, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 19.9.2008. 19. While granting the license, in favour of the second respondent, for the balance period, from 1.1.2011 to 31.3.2012, the first respondent had taken into consideration the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.181, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 19.9.2008. 19. While granting the license, in favour of the second respondent, for the balance period, from 1.1.2011 to 31.3.2012, the first respondent had taken into consideration the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.181, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 19.9.2008. Thereafter, an order had been passed by the first respondent, dated 26.3.2012, renewing the license granted in favour of the second respondent, for a further period of one year, from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013, in terms of the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.181, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 19.9.2008. 20. Further, from the records available, it is clear that the first respondent, as well as the second respondent, who were the actual parties to the terms and conditions of the agreement, based on which the license had been granted, had understood that the license granted in favour of the second respondent was in accordance with the conditions prescribed in the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.181, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 19.9.2008. 21. It is also noted that the said Government Order has been issued containing certain guidelines to be followed, while conducting a public auction, for certain purposes. However, the said Government Order would not vest any right in the petitioner to challenge the agreement, which had been concluded between the first and the second respondents. However, it may be open to the petitioner to agitate the matter before the appropriate authority, who may have the administrative control over the first respondent panchayat, for passing appropriate orders, in the manner known to law. Accordingly, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners stand dismissed. In view of this order passed by this Court, it would be open to the second respondent to claim refund of the amounts deposited by him, pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, on 4.4.2012 and 20.4.2012, from the first respondent. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012, M.P.No.1 of 2012 & M.P.No.2 of 2012 are closed.