JUDGMENT :- 1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to collect the licence fees from the members of the petitioner-Association, directly. It has been stated that the petitioner-Association is a registered Association, registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, bearing Registration No.83/2009. 2. The members of the petitioner-Association have put up stalls in the area concerned and they were doing small scale business. They have been paying the necessary licence fees for running their business, by putting up stalls. For the year, 2010, the first respondent had decided to auction the right of collecting the licence fees, to individual persons. The grievance of the petitioner-Association is that a number of private licensees were mis-using their authority. Therefore, several complaints had been made to the authorities concerned to regulate the collection of the licence fees. In such circumstances, the petitioner has prayed that the first respondent may be directed to collect the licence fees from the members of the petitioner-Association, directly. while so, an order had been passed by this Court, on 12.01.2011, in W.P.No.362 of 2011, directing the respondents to conduct a re-auction for the collection of the licence fees. The petitioner-Association was directed to participate in the re-auction conducted by the first respondent. The respondents had conducted the re-auction without issuing any Notification which is contrary to the directions issued by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner-Association should be permitted to pay the licence fees, to the first respondent, directly. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that a Public Auction had been conducted, as directed by this Court, by its order, dated 12.01.2011, made in W.P.No.362 of 2011, for the period 2011-2012. One A.Karunanidhi was the successful bidder in the re-auction conducted by the respondents. In such circumstances, the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be granted. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it has become infructuous. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the first respondent, this Court is of the view that the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be granted, at this stage. 5. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the first respondent, this Court is of the view that the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be granted, at this stage. 5. From the records available before this Court, it is clear that a re-auction had been conducted, as directed by this Court, by its order, dated 12.01.2011, in W.P.No.362 of 2011. It is also noted that One A.Karunanidhi had been declared as the successful bidder. In such circumstances, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as infructuous. Accordingly, the same is dismissed, as infructuous. No costs. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the re-auction conducted by the first respondent, if so advised, in the manner known to law.