The right to collect fees in the market and slaughterhouse is only a license and not a lease. The licensee has no right to continue beyond the license period. G.O.Ms.No.285, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 24. 1985, is not applicable to licenses to collect fees in the market and slaughterhouse. The court has no jurisdiction to extend an injunction beyond the license period.

.1. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation aggrieved by the Order passed in I.A.No.82 of 1993 in O.S. No.149 of 1992 on the file of Sub-Court, Madurai, dated 8. 2. 1993 has approached this Court by way of the present revision in C.R.P.No.691 of 1993 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Likewise, against the order in I.A.No.55 of 1993 in O.S. No.182 of 1993, on the file of the I Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai dated 2. 1993 C.R.P.No.692 of 1993 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Since identical orders have been passed both the revisions can be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Even at the outset, in view of the fact that the interim injunction granted by the courts below had already expired (granted up to 1. 3.1993 and 3. 1993 respectively), Mr.V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the respondents submits that nothing survives in the present revisions for adjudication. The abovesaid statement has not been disputed by Mr.E.Padmanaban, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner-defendant is a Municipal Corporation, is facing is same problem year after year, he wants this Court to go into the merits and legal aspects and render a categorical pronouncement. Though I am in entire agreement with the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents, in the interest of civic body, I want to discuss some of the features of the case in the following manner.

.3. The subject matter in C.R.P.No.691 of 1993 is to auction the right to collect fees for the market in K.Pudur, Madurai South. The details furnished by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are hereby extracted in order to understand the case of the parties. In the year 1990-91, the respondent was the successful bidder for the purpose of collecting the fees from the vendors in the road margin, Madurai Alagarkoil Road, near K.Pudur. In October, 1990 due to traffic congestion the road margin was shifted to the southern side of the Divisional Office of Madurai Corporation on Alagarkoil Road. Later it was converted to market, and brought for public auction on 30. 1. 1991 for the year 1991-92. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.125 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai and obtained interim order. The petitioner permitted the respondent to collect fees for the period till 33. 1992. For 1992-93 permission to collect fee was notified for public auction. The respondent filed O.S.No.149 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Madurai for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the removal of lease for 1992-93. He filed an application in I.A.No.117 of 1992 seeking for temporary injunction. The interim order was made absolute on 18. 1992. The respondent is permitted to collect fees for the year 1992-93, till 33. 1993. Again on 11. 1993 the petitioner notified auction for the year 1993-94. Pursuant to auction notification, the respondent filed another application I.A.No. 100 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai. On 2. 1993 along with the suit, the respondent filed an application in I.A.No.100 of 1993 in O.S. No.173 of 1993 seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner herein from proceeding with the auction. In the said application, the Madurai Corporation has filed counter affidavit, opposing any grant of injunction. On 2. 1993, the Principal District Munsif dismissed the application for injunction on merits, stating that the respondent cannot have any right after the period for which the licence was granted. Further, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.82 of 1993 in O.S.No.149 of 1992 for the same relief suppressing the fact that I.A.No.100 of 1993 in O.S.No.173 of 1993 was dismissed, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Maudrai. The petitioner-Corporation has filed counter-affidavit pointing out the dismissal of the application filed for an injunction by the same petitioner with resp