JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition Nos.3008030101 of 2019 and Writ Petition Nos.3018430185 of 2019, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions by quashing the auction notification dated 09.07.2019 and all other consequential actions, the 3rd respondent-Arakalgud Town Panchayat has preferred the instant appeal. 2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Arakalgud Town Panchayat is the 3rd respondent in all the writ petitions, out of which the instant appeal is preferred. The petitioners in all the cases were the tenants under the 3rd respondent, in terms of the lease entered into between the 3rd respondent and the petitioners. The Government issued a circular dated 26.10.2009 in which it was indicated that all the existing tenants whose lease had expired were entitled to get a fresh lease for another period of twelve years subject to enhancement of 50 percent of security advance amount and the payment of rent as per the slab fixed by the Government in the Department of Municipal Administration. The lease of the petitioners by the time the circular was issued had expired. 4. It is the case of the 3rd respondent that out of the 114 tenants, only 51 tenants gave their free consent and opted for the revised security amount in terms of the circular dated 26.10.2009 and a new rent of those tenants was fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District. In terms of the option of the tenants, who had chosen to take the benefit of the Government circular, a fresh lease agreement was executed in their favour. The remaining 63 tenants did not come forward to take the benefit of the circular nor vacated the premises. All the petitioners were among them. In those circumstances, the 3rd respondent issued notices on 6.10.2015 for evicting the petitioners from the shops. 5. Challenging the notices issued for eviction, all the petitioners filed writ petitions in Writ Petition Nos.1800018003 of 2016 connected with Writ Petition Nos.905665 of 2016. All the petitioners were among them. In those circumstances, the 3rd respondent issued notices on 6.10.2015 for evicting the petitioners from the shops. 5. Challenging the notices issued for eviction, all the petitioners filed writ petitions in Writ Petition Nos.1800018003 of 2016 connected with Writ Petition Nos.905665 of 2016. The writ petitions were disposed off ordering that the petitioners should vacate the premises on or before one year from 6.4.2016 and hand over the keys to the concerned authorities, failing which the occupants of the shops were directed to pay monthly rent of Rs.15,000/till they vacate the premises. They were also directed to deposit the rents before this Court and file an affidavit within six weeks to that effect. 6. The petitioners challenged the said order passed in the writ petitions before the learned Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.1723 of 2017 and 47034717 of 2017 c/w. Writ Appeal Nos.2273 of 2017 & 55745586 of 2017, Writ Appeal Nos.48124817 of 2017. The Writ Appeals were dismissed on 25.4.2019 for non prosecution on the ground that the petitioners were not interested in prosecuting those appeals as there was no representation before the Court on several occasions. 7. This order of the learned Division Bench on 25.4.2019 has become final as no document is placed before us of any application to recall the said order. Notices were issued to all the petitioners by the 3rd respondent on the ground that the tenants had not remitted the rental deposit in terms of the order of this Court. This action of the petitioners disentitling them from participation in the fresh auction notification issued on 9.7.2019, the petitioners chose to challenge the notification by filing several writ petitions. The learned Single Judge clubbing all the matters together set aside the auction notification dated 9.07.2019 and all further proceedings thereto on the ground that the auction notification was issued contrary to the Government Order dated 9.10.2015 and also Government Circular dated 14.8.2015. The Government Order dated 9.10.2015 empowers the Deputy Commissioner to issue notification in the respective districts that they were heading. The instant notification was issued by the Chief Officer. Without going into whether the Chief Officer was delegated by the Deputy Commissioner to issue the notification or other wise, the learned Single Judge quashed the notification dated 9.07.2009 on the ground that it was contrary to the Government Orders dated 14.08.2015 and 9.10.2015. The instant notification was issued by the Chief Officer. Without going into whether the Chief Officer was delegated by the Deputy Commissioner to issue the notification or other wise, the learned Single Judge quashed the notification dated 9.07.2009 on the ground that it was contrary to the Government Orders dated 14.08.2015 and 9.10.2015. Liberty was reserved to the 3rd respondent to notify the shops for auction strictly in terms of the Government orders dated 14.8.2015 and 9.10.2015. Feeling aggrieved, the 3rd respondent-Arakalgud Town Panchayat has preferred instant appeal. 8. We have heard Sri Nataraja H.T., learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Nagaiah, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 22 and Sri Vijay Kumar. N.Y., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.23 and 24. 9. The petitioners who were the tenants under the rd respondent, on completion of the lease period, were given an option to have the benefit of the circular dated 26.10.2009, wherein it was stated that a fresh lease agreement for a period of 12 years would be granted to the existing tenants provided that, they agree for enhancing 50 percent of security advance amount and payment of rent as per the slab in terms of the circular. Out of 114 tenants, only 51 gave their consent and a fresh lease agreement was executed in their favour. The remaining tenants opted to pay the same rent fixed as per the earlier lease agreement and continued to occupy their respective premises despite the expiry of the term stipulated in the lease agreement. 10. The Government issued a circular on 14.8.2015, in furtherance of the law as contemplated in Section 72(1) and 72(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 read with Rule 39 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Guidance of Officers, Grant of Copies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 1966. After the issuance of the said circular, steps were taken by the appellants to evict the persons who were in occupation of the shop premises even after the lease had expired. Since the petitioners did not opt for the fresh lease agreement and the agreement that was entered into between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent had expired, notices were issued on 6.10.2015 by the 3rd respondent to all the petitioners seeking their eviction. All the shop owners approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos. and 1800018003 of 2016 connected with Writ Petition Nos.905665 of 2016. All the shop owners approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos. and 1800018003 of 2016 connected with Writ Petition Nos.905665 of 2016. The writ petitions were disposed off on 6.4.2016 by the following order: “6. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed off directing the petitioners to vacate the premises on or before one year from today i.e., on or before 06.04.2017 and handover the keys to the concerned. In case, if they fail to vacate the premises as above, they should pay monthly rent of Rs..15,000/ti they vacate and the rent should be deposited before this Court. 7. Petitioners are directed to file an affidavit to that effect within a period of six weeks from today.” 11. Identical writ petitions were filed by the others in Writ Petition Nos.1506915084 of 2016. Following the order passed in Writ Petition Nos.905665 of 2016, the learned Single Judge disposed off the said writ petitions on 27.4.2016 by the following order: “2. The prayer made by the petitioners is to set aside the notice dated 06.10.2015 (Annexures D1 to D18) issued by the third respondent directing the petitioners to vacate their respective shops and hand over vacant possession within seven days, against which, these petitions have been filed. 3. In similar circumstances, in W.P.No.9056/2016 considering the case of the petitioners, this Court disposed of the writ petitions by granting one year time to vacate the premises, from the date of the said order. 4. In view of the fact that this Court granted one year time in a similar case of this nature, these petitioners are also granted one year time to vacate the premises and hand over the same to the Respondents without creating any third party interest and without getting any notice. Further, it is directed that these petitioners shall vacate the premises voluntarily. 5. These petitions are disposed of with an observation that when the public property is leased to the public, it shall be for a particular period and after the completion of the said period, the petitioners or the persons in occupation of the said property have to vacate the same. It is however directed that after completion of the tenancy or lease period, the same has to be notified and call for applications from the interested persons and may allot on the basis of the eligibility and reservations has to be made to the backward classes. It is however directed that after completion of the tenancy or lease period, the same has to be notified and call for applications from the interested persons and may allot on the basis of the eligibility and reservations has to be made to the backward classes. It has been observed from the notice issued that initially, lease was granted to the petitioners in the year 1982. It is directed that the Authorities to issue public Notification calling for prospective persons to make their applications and on receiving the same, the Authorities on the basis of the social justice, the same has to be dealt with.” 12. With regard to Writ Petition No.18091 of 2016 and Writ Petition Nos.2412624130 of 2016, the learned Single Judge by his order dated 27.04.2016 disposed off the same by following the order that was passed in Writ Petition Nos.1800018003 of 2016 connected with Writ Petition Nos.905665 of 2016. The order passed in Writ Petition No.18091 of 2016 and Writ Petition Nos.24126 24130 of 2016, reads thus: “The learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for Respondents No.1 and 2. 2. The prayer made by the petitioners is to set aside the notice dated 06.10.2015 (Annexures D1 to D6) issued by the third respondent directing the petitioners to vacate their respective shops and hand over vacant possession within seven days, against which, these petitions have been filed. 3. In similar circumstances, in W.P.No.9056/2016 considering the case of the petitioners, this Court disposed of the writ petitions by granting one year time to vacate the premises, from the date of the said order. 4. In view of the fact that this Court granted one year time in a similar case of this nature, these petitioners are also granted one year time to vacate the premises and hand over the same to the Respondents without creating any third party interest and without getting any notice. Further, it is directed that these petitioners shall vacate the premises voluntarily. 5. These petitions are disposed of with an observation that when the public property is leased to the public, it shall be for a particular period and after the completion of the said period, the petitioners or the persons in occupation of the said property have to vacate the same. 5. These petitions are disposed of with an observation that when the public property is leased to the public, it shall be for a particular period and after the completion of the said period, the petitioners or the persons in occupation of the said property have to vacate the same. It is however directed that after completion of the tenancy or lease period, the same has to be notified and call for applications from the interested persons and may allot on the basis of the eligibility and reservations has to be made to the backward classes. It has been observed from the notice issued that initially, lease was granted to the petitioners in the year 1982. It is directed that the Authorities to issue public Notification calling for prospective persons to make their applications and on receiving the same, the Authorities on the basis of the social justice, the same has to be dealt with.” In all the aforeextracted orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforementioned writ petitions, a direction was given to the petitioners therein to vacate the premises within one year and hand over the keys of the premises to the 3rd respondent therein without getting any further notice. This is the common order that was passed in all the writ petitions. The first of the orders that was passed on 6.4.2016 was clear in terms that, the petitioners were given one year to vacate the premises from that day and hand over the key to the 3rd respondent on or before 6.4.2017. If they fail to do so, they should pay monthly rent of Rs.15,000/till they vacate the premises and the rent should be deposited before this Court. Further, it was directed that an affidavit, to that effect, to be filed by the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of passing the said order. 13. This was challenged in Writ Appeal Nos.1723 of 2017 and 47034717 of 2017 c/w. Writ Appeal Nos.2273 of 2017 & 55745586 of 2017, Writ Appeal Nos.48124817 of 2017. The Writ Appeals came up for consideration of this Court on 25.4.2019. Since, there was no representation by the appellants repeatedly, the appeals were dismissed on the ground that the appellants therein were not interested to prosecute the appeals. The Writ Appeals came up for consideration of this Court on 25.4.2019. Since, there was no representation by the appellants repeatedly, the appeals were dismissed on the ground that the appellants therein were not interested to prosecute the appeals. The said order of the learned Division Bench has also become final as no documents were placed before us for getting the said order recalled. 14. After the aforementioned proceedings, notices came to be issued to all the petitioners quoting the earlier proceedings and directing to deposit monthly rent of Rs.15,000/as directed by this Court and in the event if the petitioners would fail to deposit the same, they will loose the opportunity to participate in the ensuing public auction, which was later notified on 9.7.2019 as per Annexures-N and N1. The very petitioners who had suffered an order before this Court and who had not complied with the directions issued therein, which became final, chose to challenge those notices on the ground that without holding any enquiry and without providing any opportunity to the petitioners, the tender cum auction was notified on 9.7.2019. The learned Single Judge on noticing the fact that the auction notification was issued by the Chief Officer, Hassan District, who had no authority to do so in the light of the Government Orders dated 9.10.2015 and 14.8.2015, held that the very auction notification was without authority of law and accordingly, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the auction notification and all consequential actions thereto. 15. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent would contend before us that the Government Order dated 9.10.2015 investing the power of the Deputy Commissioner to permit issuance of notification by any delegatee and has placed on record the Government Order dated 9.10.2015. The impugned auction notification dated 9.7.2009 was no doubt signed by the Chief Officer but it was on the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, who had delegated the authority of issuance of notification to the Chief Officer and no fault can be found with the said notification. 16. Per contra, the learned Counsel for writ petitioners would seek to justify the order on the ground that the Chief Officer had no power to issue the notification of auction. 16. Per contra, the learned Counsel for writ petitioners would seek to justify the order on the ground that the Chief Officer had no power to issue the notification of auction. Since the said notification was without authority of law, the learned Single Judge was right in quashing the same and would seek to contend that the judgment of the learned Single Judge should not be interfered with as liberty was also reserved to the Town Panchayat to issue a fresh notification in accordance with law. 17. In our considered view, it is not required to delve upon the competence of the issuance of auction notification or as to whether the Deputy Commissioner had delegated the same to the Chief Officer who had issued the notification dated 9.7.2019. It is the conduct of the petitioners which has to be considered. The fact is that, it is these very petitioners who had approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.1800018003 of 2016 connected with Writ Petition Nos.905665 of 2016 and this Court granted them one year time upto 6.4.2017 to vacate the premises in question failing which, the petitioners herein were to pay rent of Rs.15,000/per month and the same to be deposited in this Court. 18. On a perusal of the records, it is clear that the petitioners have neither paid the rent nor deposited the same before this Court. Having failed to do so, the petitioners acted contrary to the order passed by this Court and chose to challenge the subsequent notices as also the tender notification. It is this act of the petitioners that would disentitle them to the relief that the petitioners have got in the writ petitions in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 19. Having suffered an order before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.1800018003 of 2016 connected with Writ Petition Nos.905665 of 2016 dated 6.4.2016, which became final, coupled with the fact that the petitioners did not comply with the direction made in the order by paying the rent of Rs.15,000/per month and depositing the same before this Court, the petitioners could not have filed another writ petition challenging the auction notification and the notices issued to them. The conduct of the petitioners ought to have been noticed by the learned Single Judge as it was not the plea of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge that the auction notification was without competence. The writ petitions ought to have been dismissed on the ground of conduct of the petitioners and noncompliance of the order passed by this Court in depositing the monthly rent of Rs.15,000/after the expiry of the time limit fixed in the writ petitions, which was on 6.4.2017. In view of the previous writ petitions initiated by the writ petitioners, they have no right to challenge the consequential proceedings. 20. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that an appropriate interference is called for without going into the validity of the Government Orders dated 9.10.2105 and 14.8.2015 as to who is the appropriate authority to issue the auction notification. The writ petitions will have to be dismissed only on the ground that the petitioners could not have filed the instant writ petitions having suffered an order of time limit for eviction coupled with the fact of not complying with the directions issued in those writ petitions, all of which had become final. 21. For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the following order: (i) The writ appeal is allowed (ii) The order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition Nos.3008030101 of 2019 and Writ Petition Nos.3018430185 of 2019, is set aside. (iii) The writ petitions are dismissed. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs.