JUDGMENT/ORDER : 1. Since common issues arise for consideration in all these Writ Petitions, they have been taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 2. These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the eviction notices issued by the third respondent. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the third respondent had allotted open space to the petitioners and subsequently they have put up small shops and they have been running business for more than three decades. In the year 1987, the third respondent had issued a notice dated 23.02.1987 for auctioning the shops. The said notice was challenged by the Vyabarigal Sangam in W.P.No.3299 of 1987 and as per the order passed in the Writ Petition, the lease was renewed. While so, the third respondent issued notices to the petitioners without getting approval from the Council of Town Panchayat. Even as per the approved plan, there was no necessity for eviction of the petitioners and the impugned notices would infringe the right of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 4. The third respondent has filed a counter denying the allegations made in the affidavit and it is stated that the Thirukkovilur Town Panchayat had decided to upgrade the bus stand by demolishing the existing superstructures to accommodate more buses and also for providing for better amenities to the users and thereafter, by a Resolution dated 20.09.2013 it was decided to evict the lessees. It is further stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu has sanctioned Rs.2 Crores for development of the bus stand. 5. A common rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners contending that during the pendency of these Writ Petitions, the second respondent had proceeded with construction of new bus stand at the cost of Rs.2 Crores and the new bus stand was inaugurated by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 04.03.2017, so, at this juncture, there is no necessity for the respondents to proceed with the impugned notices. 6. Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the year 1985 the Panchayat has allotted open space measuring from 60 sq.ft to 140 sq.ft to the petitioners to put up shops. Since then, they have been in possession of the shops by paying lease amount regularly. 6. Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the year 1985 the Panchayat has allotted open space measuring from 60 sq.ft to 140 sq.ft to the petitioners to put up shops. Since then, they have been in possession of the shops by paying lease amount regularly. The impugned notification came to be issued on 22.07.2015 on the only ground for the development of bus stand and admittedly construction of the new bus stand had been completed and inaugurated by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, so, the purpose for which the notices were issued had got vanished. The learned counsel further submitted that the occupation of the petitioners would no way cause any hindrance to the Panchayat for the development of the bus stand. 7. Per contra Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Panchayat had taken a decision to upgrade the bus stand and the notification was issued for the purpose of development of the bus stand and not for construction of the new bus stand. Hence, even after inauguration of the bus stand, the obligation of the Panchayat to give more facilities to the commuters is still subsisting and the policy decision of the respondents cannot be questioned by the lessees in these Writ Petitions. 8. Heard Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi, learned Standing counsel for the respondents and perused the records and also photographs produced by both sides. 9. Perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that the notices were issued for development of the bus stand. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the notices were not issued for construction of the bus stand. It is evident from the photographs that the petitioners have put up small shops in the bus stand. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it causes nuisance to the commuters and in view of the interim order passed in the Writ Petitions, development activities in the bus stand have been crippled. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have occupied the land in the year 1985 and subsequently, area of the Panchayat has extended, population in the Panchayat and the movement of the vehicles have increased in manifolds. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have occupied the land in the year 1985 and subsequently, area of the Panchayat has extended, population in the Panchayat and the movement of the vehicles have increased in manifolds. Taking note of these facts, the Panchayat had taken a decision to develop the bus stand in order to give more facility to the general public. Hence, I do not find any force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. In view of the above fact, in my considered opinion, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought for in these Writ Petitions. In the result, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.