Statute exempt from promissory estoppel.

K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.

1. When the miscellaneous petitions came up for hearing, by consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

2. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:

...to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order of direction forbearing the first respondent from conducting public auction for the shops in the Kangeyam Bus-Stand on 11.8.1989 pursuant to the order of the first respondent dated 19.6.1989 and consequently direct the respondent to grant the lease of the shops to the petitioners as per resolution No. 69 of 1989....

3. The Kangeyam Bus Stand, which was in the junction point of Dharapuram-Erode and Coimbatore-Trichy road was situated in Kangeyam Town Panchayat. Since it became congested one and not suitable for the growing population of passengers necessity arose to expand the old Bus Stand as new one with provisions of shopping, retiring and public convenience facilities. Since the old bus stand was not suitable to overcome the public transport congestion, the Government, through Town and Country Planning Board has sanctioned Rs. 20 lakhs project to construct new bus stand with shopping centre for the benefit of the passengers. The new bus stand project is completed by the Town Panchayat from the borrowed fund. The petitioners were allowed to put up bunk stalls, vacant site etc. On annual lease in the old bus stand and the lease was renewed in their favour every year on condition the lessee should be bound to vacate the leased property as and when the Executive Officer requires.

4. The petitioners have been continuing as tenants under the first respondent. When the first respondent Town Panchayat attempted to conduct fresh lease of the shops without offering a chance for renewal to the existing lessees, the petitioners preferred civil suits and all the civil suits were decreed in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter the leases agreements in favour of the petitioners were renewed once again in the month of April, 1985 for a period of three years ending with 31st March, 1988. During the pendency of the above lease arrangement with the first respondent, the first respondent attempted to evict the petitioners from the shops and one of the shopkeepers by name Thiru. P.A. Meera Mohideen along with some petitioners filed W.P. No. 5855 of 1986 before this Court and the writ petition was admitted by this Court and interim injunction was also granted in W.M.P. No. 8430 of 1986. The prayer in that writ petition was for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to construct semi permanent shops in the proposed temporary bus stand at Kangeyam and allot the same to the petitioners during the pendency of the petitioners lease with the respondent viz. 31.3.1988. It seems on 205.1986, Resolution No. 69 of 1986 was passed by the first respondent herein. It seems that the said Resolution considered the Writ Petition No. 5855 of 1986 which has been pending before this Court stating that the shops which are going to be constructed will be given on lease to the petitioners therein either basing upon the rate fixed by the Public Works Department or 30% over the present rate prevailed thereon, whichever is higher and that the shops will be given to the petitioners therein on lease for three years from the date on which the new bus stand is handed over to the first respondent Panchayat. In view of this Resolution, it seems the Writ Petition No. 5855 of 1986 was dismissed as not pressed by Mohan, J. (as he then was) and the order of the Writ Petition is as follows:

The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the respondents have agreed to give the lease in favour of the petitioners for a period of three years on increased rental. Hence, the writ petition is not pressed. Recording this, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

It is stated that the new bus stand thereafter came to be completed and when the petitioners found that no shops were offered to