ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire tender process as also the allotment/transfer of the possession of the shop, appertaining to plot no. 1862/63, Set No. 7, Ward No. 24, Bazar Trand, Upper Bazar, Ranchi to the respondent no. 4, as the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have not followed the due procedure of law. 2. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (C) No. 6249 of 2012, claiming that the shop in question was settled in the year 1965 in favour of his father-Moti Lal Murarka, who died in the year 1982 and, thereafter, the respondent-Corporation continued to accept rent for the said shop till 2008. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 13th March, 2013 with an observation that the respondent-Corporation would consider the petitioner’s application in accordance with law within a reasonable period preferably within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It was further observed that it would be open to the respondents to take appropriate decision including any other mode to be adopted for allotment of the shop in question as also by advertisement. In pursuance of the order dated 13th March, 2013 passed in the said writ petition, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi and Cont. Case (Civil) No. 571 of 2013 filed by the petitioner was, accordingly, dismissed vide order dated 6th May, 2015. 3. The grievance of the petitioner raised through the present writ petition is that the shop in question was settled in favour of respondent no. 4-Rajesh Kumar without issuing any advertisement. 4. However, on perusal of Annexure-4 to the writ petition (a copy of the information furnished to the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005), it appears that the settlement of the shop in question was done by e-auction through MSTC Limited, a Government of India Enterprises. Otherwise also, the petitioner cannot claim preferential right for allotment of the shop in his favour on the ground that the same was earlier allotted in favour of his father and even after his death, the respondent-Corporation continued to accept rent of the shop for certain period. 5. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.