ORDER : Since the issue involved in both these Writ Petitions is interconnected, both these Writ Petitions are taken up together and being disposed of by the present common order. 2. Heard Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B. Mayur Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. With their consent, the present Writ Petitions are being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. These two writ petitions are filed seeking a writ of mandamus-declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing the shops constructed by the petitioners in Mahabubnagar Bus Station area, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to allot an area of 10 x 10 for six shops in the Mahabubnagar Bus Station. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the official respondents have terminated the licence of the petitioners, and therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file W.P.No.8888 of 2020 and W.P.No.8890 of 2020 respectively. This Court has disposed of the said writ petitions, vide separate orders dated 23.06.2020, directing the respondent authorities to consider the aspect of removal of the encroachments, based on the measurement from center of the road to the edge of the road. This Court has further directed the respondent authorities to permit the petitioners to continue the business, if any space is leftover in their respective shops, after removal of the said encroachments. The learned counsel has further stated that even though there is a specific direction from this Court to the authorities concerned to allot the space left after removal of the encroachments, the official respondents have not done so till date, and on the other hand, they have called for the tenders for allotting the very same place, where the shops of the petitioners were demolished. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to direct the authorities concerned to allot open space of 10 x 10 for the six shops, which were earlier demolished high handedly by the authorities concerned. 5. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to direct the authorities concerned to allot open space of 10 x 10 for the six shops, which were earlier demolished high handedly by the authorities concerned. 5. The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, has stated that the place, which is now sought to be allocated through tender process, and the place in which the petitioners were earlier conducting business, is not one and the same and the place where the petitioners were conducting business is at an altogether at a different place and the same was demolished. The learned Standing Counsel has produced the sketch map showing three different locations or site for which the present tender notification has been issued and also the place, where the earlier shops of the petitioners were existing prior to the demolition. 6. Admittedly, this Court vide orders dated 23.06.2020 in W.P.No.8888 of 2020 and W.P.No.8890 of 2020 respectively has directed the official respondents to allot space to the petitioners for conducting business, if there is any space leftover after the road expansion and removal of the encroachments. The stand of the petitioners that the official respondents are calling for the tenders in respect of the very same place, where the petitioners used to earlier conduct the business, is not correct, as evidenced from the sketch map produced by the respondents. The place where the petitioners earlier used to conduct business is totally different from the place/site for which the tenders are now called. The petitioners can have a grievance only if the space where they were earlier conducting the business is now sought to be auctioned, but they cannot have grievance, if the authorities concerned are trying to allot some other space in the bus stand. The petitioners do not have any vested right for allotment of space at any other place/location in the bus stand. If at all they are interested in doing business in the very same bus stand, they are always free to participate in the tender process and can conduct their business if they are the successful bidders, but not otherwise. The order passed in W.P. Nos.8888 and 8890 of 2020 having become final, they cannot agitate their rights once again in this writ petition. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 7. The order passed in W.P. Nos.8888 and 8890 of 2020 having become final, they cannot agitate their rights once again in this writ petition. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 7. However, at this stage, the counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the photographs filed by the petitioners, which show that after the expansion of the road and removal of the encroachments, some place, which belongs to the respondent Corporation, is available. The learned counsel states that a direction may be given to the authorities concerned to allot the said left over space to the petitioners. 8. This Court is not inclined to pass any such orders. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to make a representation to the authorities concerned to allot the said left over space to them. On such representation being made, the authorities concerned shall verify if the contention of the petitioners is correct and consider the request on merits and pass necessary orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above observations, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.