JUDGMENT : 1. Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 2. The learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the present tender notification is issued including two go-downs along with 33 shops, which is not correct, especially, the reason for cancellation of the earlier tender is not specified, when he being the highest bidder in the earlier tender. He would further contend that earlier for the shops as well as for the godowns separate notification was issued by the respondents. Now, it has been clubbed together and they issued a common tender notification. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.4120 of 2015 has preferred the Writ Petition. 3. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P. (MD).No.4209 of 2015 would contend that as per the direction of this Court earlier tender notification was set aside by this Court with a specific direction to the respondent that they should increase the security deposit amount in consonance with the bid amount. In the case on hand, in W.P.(MD).No.4209 of 2015, the base amount is mentioned as Rs.13,50,000/- for the third item (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) and Rs.20,02,500/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) is mentioned for the first item. The petitioner has deposited the amount as directed by this Court. But as far as the other participants are concerned, they have deposited Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively less than amount as directed by this Court. 4. She would further contend that if the amount is not deposited as per the direction of this Court, interlopers will come into picture and the genuine case, like the case of the petitioner, will get defeated by the interlopers. In fact, in the earlier round of litigation, at the instance of this petitioner only, for the tender in question, the amount was fixed at Rs.20,02,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs and Two thousand Only) as he was ready to offer such amount. In the said order, it was also observed that there should be public cum tender auction making it clear that at the first place, the tender should be called for and the minimum base price to be arrived at, fixing the higher amount in the tender and thereafter, public auction to be called for, in which, the participant as well as the public will be allowed. Thereafter, the better offer will be decided by the Municipality. The sum and substance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that the petitioner wants to invoke Clause 8(oo) of the Gazette Notification of the respondent in respect of the tender cum auction for the year 2015-2018 based on the petitioner's representation dated 20.03.2015. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality would contend that the auction is conducted with some modification as per the direction of this Court. If this auction is also stalled, the Municipality will be put to irreparable loss. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of both the Writ Petitions. 6. Heard both sides. By consent, both the Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and decided by a common order. 7. The first and foremost contention of the learned Senior Counsel is concerned, earlier publication is made only for two go-downs, now, it has been included in the present notification along with the shops, by which the petitioner is aggrieved resulting in filing of the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.4120 of 2015. In the earlier round of litigation, the Municipality has specifically pointed out that the go-downs will also form part of the 33 shops. According to the Municipality, in order to increase the income of the Municipality, they have done so for the reason that correspondingly, the amount will also get increased. Therefore, the action of the Municipality cannot be questioned by the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.4120 of 2015 that they should not include those go-downs also along with the shops. It is for the Municipality to decide it, whether it has to be called for along with godowns or not and it is not open to the petitioner to do it in a particular manner. Especially, all these exercise has been done by the Municipality as per the direction of this Court keeping in mind that the revenue of the Government should be increased to a great extent. 8. Especially, all these exercise has been done by the Municipality as per the direction of this Court keeping in mind that the revenue of the Government should be increased to a great extent. 8. Insofar the second contention of the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.4209 of 2015 that the security deposit amount should be inconsonance with the bid amount fixed by the respondent, it appears to be taken note of, for the reason that in the case on hand, at the instance of the petitioner, in W.P.(MD).No.4209 of 2015, it has been proved that the auction price for the tender called for by the respondent should be at least Rs.20,00,000/- Lakhs and above. Therefore, this Court felt appropriate tender notification to be issued for public auction. Accordingly, the tender notification has been issued by the Municipality. In this connection, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality submits that the auctioneers will be directed to deposit the amount as per the quantum arrived at in the final auction. He also brought to the notice of this Court that the said averment is also notified in the notification itself. As soon as the auction is over and the final amount is received, the highest bidder will be asked to deposit the equal amount as directed by this Court, which is the mandatory condition and the same will also be informed well in advance to the participants as to the amount to be deposited at the time of finalisation of the auction. The said statement is recorded. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the tender notification issued by the respondent and there is no reason to set aside the tender notification issued by the Municipality. Therefore, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of making it clear that the petitioners can also participate in the auction to be conducted by the respondent, if they so desire and in any event, the auction will go on, as scheduled by the respondent. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.