JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is a physically challenged person. He sought for permission to continue to conduct the PCO business in a bunk on the pavement in Toms Road, Chintadripet, Chennai. The same was rejected by the first respondent by an order dated 29.11.2008 stating that doing business in a bunk shop on the pavement would cause hindrance to the traffic and the same therefore cannot be permitted. He has filed this Writ Petition to quash the aforesaid order dated 29.11.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has submitted that on 28.2.2001, the first Bench of this Court in a batch of Writ Petition, namely W.P.No.12356 of 1996 and etc., held that business in a bunk shop cannot be compared with the hawkers and a direction cannot be issued to the Corporation to give licence to have a bunk shop on the pavement. It is relevant to extract the following passage in paragraph 12 and paragraph 13 of the judgment dated 28.2.2001 in W.P.No.12356 of 1996 batch. "On consideration we find that this Court can neither issue a direction to grant licence, nor can give any direction to regularize the petitioners, for doing trade on the pavements, by putting up bunk shops. More particularly, as per the submission of the learned counsel for the Corporation, the Corporation has decided not to grant any licence or permission, which is a policy decision. The public interest is paramount. Therefore, allowing to put up bunk shops at such pathways/streets/roads/corners/areas, otherwise is not reasonable and no direction can be issued. 13. So far as the argument that some directions may be issued to consider the present petitioners' cases also, as issued in the hawkers' case is concerned, the same is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the present cases. That apart, mere possession of bunk shops on the public road will not give any right to persons like the petitioners herein, nor they are entitled for consideration as per the directions given in the case of hawkers, as they did not claim any particular place or space permanently, as that of the petitioners in the present cases. More so, we find no reason to take a different view from the above three judgments, cited above." 5. More so, we find no reason to take a different view from the above three judgments, cited above." 5. He also relied on the other First Bench judgment of this Court dated 7.3.2013 in W.P.No.1480 of 2013 wherein the First Bench recorded a statement from the counter affidavit that the Corporation would take steps to remove the bunks on the pavement. It is also useful to refer to paragraph 3 of the aforesaid judgment, which is as follows: "3. Today, the 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein, in paragraph NO.8, it has been stated as follows: "8. I state that the Corporation has already started to implement the court order. The disabled persons have also been instructed to remove their bunks by their own arrangements, failing which, the Corporation will take action to remove the same. Moreover, the Corporation will take a minimum of four months time to complete the work and hence the fifth respondent Corporation is in need of the said directions and 4 months time to implement the said orders." 6. In view of the aforesaid two orders of the First Bench of this Court, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly is dismissed. No costs.