ORDER : By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner was allotted a shop to run a textile shop. In pursuant to the said allotment, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment over the years. The resolution was passed by the Corporation on 25.02.2014 in Resolution No.207/2014, giving sanction to demolish and reconstruct the existing zonal-IV office building. This building is situated in the very same complex, in which, the petitioner's shop is situated. There are 3 shops in the said building, inclusive of the petitioner's shop. It appears that the new building is blocked by the old one and therefore, there is no entry to it, until and unless the older one is demolished paving way for access by way of ingress and egress. 3. From the photographs submitted, it is also seen that the old building is in a dilapidated condition, requiring demolition. Two of the shop owners have vacated the shops in issue. Under those circumstances, the petitioner's license fee was not accepted and a Writ Petition in WP.No.38857 of 2016 was filed by the petitioner, in which, the following order was passed on 08.11.2016 : “...3. The impugned order only calls upon the petitioner to pay the license fee within seven days. As it is on record that the petitioner had already paid by way of demand draft dated 16.04.2016 a sum of Rs.625/-, the respondents have to consider the said amount as a licence fee and act accordingly. Since the petitioner had already paid the licence fee, as stated above, the respondents are directed not to proceed pursuant to the impugned order and the respondents are further directed to pass orders granting appropriate licence to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, taking into consideration the payment of licence fee made by the petitioner....” 4. Even prior to the above referred order, the impugned order was passed by the 3rd respondent on 03.03.2016, asking the petitioner to vacate the shop, since the place is required for office purpose. The impugned order dated 03.03.2016 has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 5. It is also seen that WP.No.38857 of 2016 has been filed, after the present writ petition being filed. The impugned order dated 03.03.2016 has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 5. It is also seen that WP.No.38857 of 2016 has been filed, after the present writ petition being filed. In pursuant to the order dated 08.11.2016 in W.P.No.38857 of 2016, another order was passed by the Zonal Officer, Zone-IV on 07.02.2017, rejecting the request of the petitioner for extension of lease/license. The said rejection was passed on two grounds, namely, the petitioner is not running the textile shop and the old building is proposed to be demolished for extension of a new one. 6. Incidentally, the said order states that two of the other licensees have vacated and in future, the petitioner has to participate in the auction in any of the commercial complex belonging to the respondent which would be conducted, as per the Standing Orders in the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 03.07.2007, in which, the petitioner would be given priority. The above said order has not been put into challenge. 7. With the above said factual backdrop, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as it was not preceded by any notice. The said order has to be been seen in context of the order passed in W.P.No.38857 of 2016 dated 08.11.2016. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents would submit that the order dated 07.02.2017 has not been put into challenge. The said order has been passed, in compliance of the order passed in W.P.No.38857 of 2016. As the request for renewal been rejected already and having attained finality, there is nothing to adjudicate upon the impugned order in the present writ petition. The old building requires demolition urgently, since the new one has already constructed, but unable to use, due to lack of access. The petitioner would be given accommodation in any one of the existing shop complex in Zone-IV, subject to the availability. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. From the submissions made, it is apparent that the petitioner does not have a license in currency till date. The order passed rejecting his request for extension/renewal has not been put into challenge. There is no contrary material to hold that the need for demolition is imaginary. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. From the submissions made, it is apparent that the petitioner does not have a license in currency till date. The order passed rejecting his request for extension/renewal has not been put into challenge. There is no contrary material to hold that the need for demolition is imaginary. The impugned order in the present writ petition has been passed, even much prior to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.38857 of 2016 on 08.11.2016. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to allow the writ petition, in view of the subsequent developments as well. 10. The petitioner does not have a vested right and hence, no prior notice is required. The order passed by this Court in W.P.38857 of 2016 has to be considered in its own context. In any case, that order cannot be pressed into service for impugning the order under challenge, being subject matter of the decision taken by the respondents, which is also not put into challenge. 11. Taking into consideration the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General who has been instructed by the responsible officer, who is present before this Court, the petitioner is at liberty to identify the shops available in Zone - IV in any one of the commercial complexes. The said exercise to be completed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After receipt of the same, the respondents 2 and 3 as the case may be or any other officer, who is competent, shall allot a shop in the existing commercial complex situated in Zone - IV in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. The petitioner is directed to vacate the shop in question within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected WMPs are closed.