Judgment: R. Banumathi, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petitions and declining to issue direction to the Chennai Corporation to grant licence to the Appellants for bus stand shelters for a period of 12 years, Appellants have preferred these appeals. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Appeals are - Based on the recommendations of the Committee to improve transport infrastructure, G.O.Ms.No.14 M.A & W.S. Department dated 11.1.1993 was issued. The said Government Order allowed the State Transport Undertakings to provide shelters for passengers and to maintain them and Government also directed the local bodies to provide bus bay spaces to State Transport Undertakings, wherever possible. Since then, in Chennai City all bus stand shelters except 364 bus stand shelters were vested with Metro Transport Corporation (then Pallavan Transport Corporation). Metro Transport Corporation (for short “MTC”) involved various private agencies to erect and maintain the shelters and they were allowed to advertise in these shelters for which MTC had collected royalty amounts. 3. In the mean while, there arose dispute between MTC and private agencies regarding allotment and the private agencies have approached the High Court, Madras by filing Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.3889 of 2003 etc. batch. In the sid Writ Petitions, the Division Bench went into the question whether Chennai Corporation or MTC is the custodian of bus stand shelters. Holding that Corporation of Chennai is the custodian of the bus stand shelters, the Division Bench by its judgement dated 05.9.2006 dismissed all the Writ Petitions interalia issuing direction for erection of bus stand shelters and in the mean while permitted the sponsors to continue their activities in relation to the shelters already established, subject to payment of Rs.49,500/- per shelter for one module of 20 x 4 size shelters and a sum of Rs.99,000/- for the second module consists of 40 x 4 shelters. Being aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, the advertising agencies viz., AIM Associations Limited and M/s.Front Line Media and others have filed S.L.P.(C) Nos.276 of 2007 and 852 of 2007 and MTC had filed S.L.P.(C) No.16908 of 2006 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Pursuant to the decision taken in the joint meeting of Transport Department and the Chennai Corporation held on 14.7.2007, it was decided that Chennai Corporation has to modernise all bus stand shelters in Chennai City under Build, Operate and Transfer basis. 4. Pursuant to the decision taken in the joint meeting of Transport Department and the Chennai Corporation held on 14.7.2007, it was decided that Chennai Corporation has to modernise all bus stand shelters in Chennai City under Build, Operate and Transfer basis. MTC has to handover litigation free bus shelters to Chennai Corporation and that MTC has to take action to end the pending cases in the Court and to hand over the bus shelters to Chennai Corporation, so that Chennai Corporation could put up modernised bus shelters. It was further agreed that the revenue derived from the modernised bus shelters shall be shared by Chennai Corporation and MTC on equal basis. Accordingly, MTC has handed over 416 litigation free bus shelters to Chennai Corporation. In the said meeting, it was also decided that on completion of cases, MTC has to hand over the bus shelters covered under litigation also. 5. It is stated that contrary to the decisions made at the meeting Chaired by the then Minister (R.D. & L.A) to hand over the bus shelters covered under litigation to Chennai Corporation, MTC came to understand with its co-litigants in the Special Leave Petitions and filed a compromise memo in the Hon'ble Supreme Court agreeing to allot 500 bus shelters to the agencies. The said compromise memo was recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30.6.2008 and passed an order disposing the Special Leave Petitions observing that the question of law raised in the Petition is left open for decision in appropriate proceedings. 6. The concession fee fixed by the MTC in the compromise memo per shelter is only Rs.30,000/- per annum which is very meagre when compared with Rs.2,04,043/- per shelter per annum offered by the bidders in the open tender called by the Chennai Corporation for its shelters. After the order (30.6.2008) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, MTC had handed over 160 bus shelters to Chennai Corporation retaining the remaining shelters at prime locations with itself. Based on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Chennai Corporation passed a resolution on 26.2.2010 to issue “NOC” to MTC with certain conditions. At this stage, M/s.Nova Ads filed Writ Petition in W.P.(Civil) No.223 of 2009 before the Supreme Court to recall the earlier order regarding the compromise. By the order dated 11.1.2011, the compromise recorded in the S.L.Ps. were recalled and the said S.L.Ps. were restored. At this stage, M/s.Nova Ads filed Writ Petition in W.P.(Civil) No.223 of 2009 before the Supreme Court to recall the earlier order regarding the compromise. By the order dated 11.1.2011, the compromise recorded in the S.L.Ps. were recalled and the said S.L.Ps. were restored. After restoration, MTC withdrew the S.L.P.(C) No.16908 of 2006. 7. Appellants are advertising agencies who were granted licence by the MTC to utilise the bus shelters and display advertisements in the bus shelters and pay royalty. When the S.L.Ps. were pending, in 2008, Appellants have filed Writ Petitions contending that MTC had compromised the matter with the other sponsors and taken a stand to retain 500 bus shelters and entered into a compromise with the advertising agencies who were co-litigants and the Appellants are also similarly placed and while so, MTC cannot treat the Appellants on different footing and discriminate them. 8. In the Writ Petitions filed, Appellants prayed for writ of mandamus directing Chennai Corporation not to interfere with the advertisement displayed in the boards put up in the bus stand shelters and also to direct the Respondents to grant licence to the Appellants for the bus stand shelters for a period of 12 years on payment of Rs.30,000/- as licence fee per annum with an escalation of 10% in every three years. 9. Upon consideration of vital contentions, learned single Judge held that Chennai Corporation is not a party to the compromise memo filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the S.L.Ps. Being aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench in W.P.No.3889 of 2003 etc. batch, only MTC has preferred the S.L.P.No.16098 of 2006 and while so, the compromise memo is not binding on Chennai Corporation. As per the consensus arrived at between MTC and Chennai Corporation, 500 bus stand shelters were allotted to MTC and the balance were with the Chennai Corporation. Learned single Judge held that based on the compromise memo, order was passed in S.L.Ps. and the order cannot be construed as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be followed in other cases. Observing that Appellants are not similarly placed as that of the advertising agencies before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that Chennai Corporation is to call for tenders for grant of licence to those bus shelters, the learned single Judge dismissed all the Writ Petitions. Observing that Appellants are not similarly placed as that of the advertising agencies before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that Chennai Corporation is to call for tenders for grant of licence to those bus shelters, the learned single Judge dismissed all the Writ Petitions. Challenging the dismissal of the Writ Petitions, Appellants have preferred these appeals. 10. We have heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for Appellants in W.A.Nos.1963 to 1968 of 2010 and Mr.V.Manohar, learned counsel for Appellants in W.A.No.1972 & 1973 of 2010. We have also heard Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.V.Bharathidasan appearing for 1st Respondent-Chennai Corporation, Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia for 2nd Respondent-MTC and Mr.P.S.Shivashanmuga Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader for 3rd Respondent. 11. As pointed out earlier, about 500 bus stand shelters are covered in the S.L.Ps. now pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) Nos.276 and 852 of 2007. MTC had handed over litigation free bus shelters to the Chennai Corporation, so that Chennai Corporation could put up modernised bus shelters by calling for tenders. 12. Writ Petitions were filed by the Appellants on the footing that MTC is authorised and empowered to develop the bus stand shelters and MTC in turn entrusted the bus stand shelters to the Appellants. Therefore, the Writ Petitioners contended that they are similarly placed as that of the advertising agencies before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As pointed out earlier, the S.L.Ps. preferred have confined only 500 bus shelters. The advertising agencies who were before the Hon'ble Supreme Court who got their licence through MTC allegedly claim right based upon the compromise memo. When admittedly there was no such compromise with the Appellants, the Appellants cannot claim that they will be similarly placed as that of other advertising agencies before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 13. As pointed out earlier, as against the judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.No.3889 of 2003 etc. batch, MTC and advertising agencies have filed three Special Leave Petitions viz., S.L.P.(C) Nos.16908 of 2006, 276 of 2007 and 852 of 2007 respectively. After restoration of S.L.Ps., MTC had already withdrawn S.L.P.No.16098 of 2006. By the order dated 09.3.2011, S.L.P.(C) No.16908 of 2006 was dismissed as withdrawn and the interim order passed was also vacated. Accepting that only Chennai Corporation has right to develop the road margin bus shelters and when MTC had withdrawn the S.L.P., Appellants cannot claim renewal of licence through MTC. By the order dated 09.3.2011, S.L.P.(C) No.16908 of 2006 was dismissed as withdrawn and the interim order passed was also vacated. Accepting that only Chennai Corporation has right to develop the road margin bus shelters and when MTC had withdrawn the S.L.P., Appellants cannot claim renewal of licence through MTC. The Chennai Corporation has called for tender only in respect of those litigation free bus shelters for which the Appellants have no right. 14. Learned Advocate General appearing for Chennai Corporation submitted that tender were called for 1032 shelters in six packages viz., 'A' to 'F' on 20.2.2012. Tender received for packages 'B' and 'C' totally 336 shelters (Package B – 189; Package C – 147). Learned Advocate General submitted that tender called for the remaining 695 shelters in eight packages viz., Sl. No.1 to 8 on 11.6.2012 and the tender received for packages 5 and 6 totally 139 shelters (Package 5 – 73; Package 6 – 66) and submitted that because of the pendency of these writ appeals and also the interim stay granted in these writ appeals, Chennai Corporation is not in a position to proceed further. By developing the bus shelters, Chennai Corporation has to discharge the civic responsibilities and the Corporation has to augment its revenue by issuing the tender. Appellants have no semblance of right to claim renewal of licence for two reasons. Firstly, the licence period of the Appellants is already over. Secondary, MTC itself does not claim any right and has withdrawn the S.L.P. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed all the Writ Petitions and we do not find any infirmity warranting interference with the order of the single Judge. 13. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Interim order granted on 17.9.2010 is vacated. No costs.