JUDGMENT : HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the common order dated 18.4.2018 made in W.P. Nos. 5311 and 5718 of 2015. 2. Heard Mr. M. Udaya Bhanu, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.T. Ram Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the appellants, which led to filing of the above appeals, are as under:- The husband and mother of the appellants respectively were issued with license for running combined fruits and tea stalls at Karur and Erode Railway Station for nearly 50 years. The lease period expired on 31.3.2015 and 28.02.2015. The respondent Railways issued notification on 02.02.2015 inviting tenders for 32 stalls over Salem Division as per Catering Policy 2010. Therefore, licenses were not renewed and hence, writ petitions were filed challenging the tender notification. In the said writ petitions, taking note of the fact that similar issue was pending before the Supreme Court and the interim order granted by the Supreme Court, interim order was granted permitting the Railways to continue with the tender process, but not to displace the writ petitioners and that continuance of the writ petitions would be subject to the further orders after finalising the tenders and also permitting the writ petitioners to participate in the tender. 4. In the meanwhile, the licensees expired and the stalls were closed. However, the appellants herein filed a petition to substitute their names as petitioners and the same was ordered. Thereafter, pursuant to the cancellation of the tender notification dated 02.02.2015, the appellants herein filed a modification petition for modifying the interim order granted on 27.02.2015. But, the learned single Judge, taking note of the fact that the license got expired and that they were running the stalls by virtue of the interim order granted on 27.02.2015 and that since the tender notification itself got cancelled, the prayer in the writ petitions has become infructuous, dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, the above appeals. 5. But, the learned single Judge, taking note of the fact that the license got expired and that they were running the stalls by virtue of the interim order granted on 27.02.2015 and that since the tender notification itself got cancelled, the prayer in the writ petitions has become infructuous, dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, the above appeals. 5. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, as per the commercial Circular No. 22/2017 dated 15.3.2017, when the original licensee expired, the legal heir is entitled to get the license transferred in his name and therefore, the respondents are duty bound to transfer the license in the name of the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the original licensee, since the original licensees were running the stalls till their death. 6. Assailing the said contention, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that transfer of license in the name of the legal heir can be made only if the period of license is not expired and in the instant case, the period of license expired in the year 2015 itself and only by virtue of the interim order, the licensees were permitted to run the stall and that such permission given to the original licensees to run the stalls cannot be termed as renewal of license and therefore, the appellants herein are not entitled to the transfer of license in their name. 7. The only issue that has to be considered in the light of the rival contentions made on behalf of both the parties is whether the appellants are entitled to transfer of license in their names or not. 8. As averred in the counter, the period of license got expired in the year 2015 itself. However, the original licensees were permitted to run the stalls only because of the interim order granted by this Court. In the year 2017, both the original licensees expired and the stalls were closed. Subsequently, the tender notification dated 02.02.2015, which was challenged by the original licensees by way of writ petitions, got cancelled and consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous. It appears that the respondents have issued a fresh tender notification inviting tenders for stalls, including the stalls in question. 9. Subsequently, the tender notification dated 02.02.2015, which was challenged by the original licensees by way of writ petitions, got cancelled and consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous. It appears that the respondents have issued a fresh tender notification inviting tenders for stalls, including the stalls in question. 9. However, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the transfer of license in the name of the legal heir could be done only if the license period has unexpired. In the case on hand, even according to the appellants, the license period expired in 2015. However, according to them, since the original licensees were permitted to run the stalls and their request for renewal of license was pending, the appellants herein are entitled for transfer of license in their names. 10. Though the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the order of the Apex Court dated 12.12.2017 made in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2017 and contended that the appellants should be heard before re-examining the policy, as directed in the said order, the same will not enure to the benefit of the appellants for the purpose of deciding the issue on hand, namely, whether the appellants are entitled to the transfer of license in their names. 11. Indisputably, the legal heirs of the licensees are entitled to the transfer of license in their names, if the licensees expire before the expiry of the license period. However, if the period of license has expired, then, the legal heirs have no right to stake the claim for transfer of license in their name. 12. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellants are entitled to the transfer of license in their names only if the period of license of the original licensees is not expired. However, whether the period of license has been expired or not has to be looked into only by the respondents. 13. The respondents are, therefore, directed to re-examine the matter and to verify whether the period of license granted to the original licensees expired or not at the time of the death of the licensees. If the period of license had expired, then the appellants cannot have any further claim for the transfer of license in their names. 13. The respondents are, therefore, directed to re-examine the matter and to verify whether the period of license granted to the original licensees expired or not at the time of the death of the licensees. If the period of license had expired, then the appellants cannot have any further claim for the transfer of license in their names. But, if the license period had not expired at the time of the death of the original licensees, then, the respondents shall consider the claim of the appellants for transfer of license in their names for the remaining period of license. 14. The writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP Nos. 8679 to 8684 of 2018 are closed.