ORDER : 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs : i. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated 22.02.2023 issued by the second respondent bearing No.Sa.Kam.Aa.(Da-Ma)/P.R/127/2022-23 marked as Annexure-D to the writ petition. ii. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ order or directions to respondents to respondents to grant shops to the petitioners in the new shopping complex to be constructed in Gandhi Bazar under the Bengaluru Smart City Program. iii. Direct the respondents to provide temporary alternate accommodation to the petitioners till completion the construction of the new shopping complex to be constructed in Gandhi Bazar under the Bengaluru Smart City Program. iv. Grant such other relief as deemed fit under the facts and the circumstance of the case. 2. The petitioners claim to be small-time businessmen and women running shops in the Gandhi Bazar market set-up by respondent No.1-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The petitioners claim to be running businesses in the said market for several decades and have been making payment of due license fee to BBMP on a regular basis. 3. By way of notice dated 22.02.2023, the BBMP had asked the petitioners to vacate the premises on the ground that the existing market building being in a dilapidated condition, was required to be demolished and re-built under the Bengaluru Smart City Program. 4. The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the said demand caused for vacating the premises. Shri R.C. Nagaraja, Learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that 4.1. Firstly, on the ground that the petitioners, have been occupying the premises for several decades, would now be displaced, and as such, they would lose their source of income. 4.2. Secondly, it is contended that there is no alternate space which has been made available to the petitioners to carry on their business during the time when the building is proposed to be constructed. 4.3. Thirdly, it is contended that once the building is constructed, similar or identical premises as that in the occupation of the petitioners will have to be allotted to the petitioners at market rate. 4.3. Thirdly, it is contended that once the building is constructed, similar or identical premises as that in the occupation of the petitioners will have to be allotted to the petitioners at market rate. In this regard, reliance is placed on a letter said to have been addressed by an officer of the BBMP as regards as the Jayanagara shopping complex, whereunder, a promise was made by the 2nd respondent that suitable space would be allotted after the building is constructed. On all the aforesaid grounds, the aforesaid relief is sought for. 5. Sri. N.R. Jagadeeshwara, learned counsel appearing for the BBMP, submits that 5.1. Insofar as the Jayanagara shopping complex is concerned, that the letter as claimed by the petitioners to have been issued was without authorization. The person who had issued the said letter has been placed under suspension, and there is an enquiry being conducted by the Hon'ble Lokayukta. With the said letter not being acted upon, the petitioners also cannot seek allotment of shop space on construction without going to a procedural auction. 5.2. As regards the alternate accommodation, he submits that a temporary alternate accommodation has been made for the petitioners to use until the building is complete. Once the building is complete, the petitioners can participate in the auction, and if successful, the newly constructed shop would be allotted to the successful petitioner. If they are not successful, they would also have to vacate the temporary structure which has been set up. His submission is that until the new building is constructed and the auction is completed, the petitioners will not be disturbed and will be permitted to carry out their business in the temporary alternate accommodation. Their possessions and their business will not be disturbed, subject to the arrears of the licence fee being paid and the license fee on a monthly basis being paid as regards the temporary accommodation. Which license fee he submits would not be more that being paid by the Petitioner now. His submission is placed on record. 5.3. Lastly he submits that merely because the petitioners have been in occupation of the premises for several decades, they cannot continue to do so, when the building is dilapidated and is a serious threat to all occupants. 6. His submission is placed on record. 5.3. Lastly he submits that merely because the petitioners have been in occupation of the premises for several decades, they cannot continue to do so, when the building is dilapidated and is a serious threat to all occupants. 6. The short question that would arise to consideration whether the tenant of Municipal Corporation to be claim equity on the basis of long standing usage of the premises so as to be allotted a shop in a newly constructed building without going to the process of auction. 7. Admittedly, the petitioners are business men or business women who have carried on their business at Gandhi Bazar Market for several decades, the said building being dilapidated and being required to be demolished is not in dispute. Once the building is dilapidated and required to be demolished in the interest of a general public as also shop shopkeepers, Shop licensees cannot have any ground not to vacate the premises. An alternative arrangement having been made by providing temporary shops by the BBMP which the petitioners are willing to make use of; however, the only condition put forth by Sri. Nagaraj R.C., learned counsel for the petitioners, is that once the building is completed, petitioners may be allotted shops without following the auction process. 8. In terms of Section 4 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999, it is required for any government authority to auction any property of the government as well as to invite bids from the general public in the case of a tender. This is required in order to ascertain the value of the property and the value of the tender on the basis of public participation, the property belonging to the BBMP, in the event of any fresh allotment is made after construction of the building by using public funds, it would be required that the same be auctioned off to the highest bidder to be allotted in the particular shops. 9. The petitioners, merely because they have been using the premises of the BBMP for several decades cannot automatically seek allotment of a shop without going through the process of auction. 10. Sri. Nagaraj R.C., learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that goodwill being established in the current location, the petitioners, if were to be displaced, would have to start afresh. The petitioners, merely because they have been using the premises of the BBMP for several decades cannot automatically seek allotment of a shop without going through the process of auction. 10. Sri. Nagaraj R.C., learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that goodwill being established in the current location, the petitioners, if were to be displaced, would have to start afresh. In my considered opinion, since the auction process is to be conducted. It would always be available to the petitioners to participate in the auction. 11. The submission of the Sri. Nagaraj R.C, learned counsel that the petitioners are small business men and women, they may not be able to participate in the auction cannot be a ground for direct allotment to the petitioners since the property in question is public property and the same cannot be dealt with by the Corporation in any manner contrary to the principles of Transparency Act by bringing same for auction. 12. It is needles to say that the petitioners would be at liberty to participate in the said auction, and until the said auction is completed, the petitioners business being carried on in the temporary accommodation would not be disturbed, as per the submission made by Sri. N.R. Jagadeeshwara, learned counsel. In that view of the matter, I pass the following : ORDER i. The petition stands dismissed, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to participate in the auction carried out. ii. Until the building is completed and auction is carried out, the petitioners shall not be disturbed from the temporary allotment. Subject to payment of past dues and future license fees.