1. The petitioners in both these writ petitions have taken on licence, the shops put up by the Palladam Municipality in the building owned by the Municipality. The license was originally granted for a period of three years and it is being renewed from time to time.

2. It appears that the term of the present licenses expired on 31.3.2014 and the respondent-Municipality issued a notice to the licensees on 10.02.2014 calling upon them to express willingness for renewal of license on or before 28.02.2014. The applicants claim to have expressed willingness.

3. However, no order either renewing the licenses or rejecting the request for renewal was passed. But, the respondent-Municipality stopped receiving the rent from 1st July 2014. Therefore, apprehending that they may be evicted, the licensees joined together and filed a writ petition in W.P.No.19035 of 2014 seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondent-Municipality from putting into public auction shop Nos.1 to 40 in the Commercial Complex built by the respondent-Municipality and for a consequential direction to the respondent-Municipality to renew their licences for a further period up to 31.3.2017 as per G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.7.2007 and as per Section 321(11) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act.

4. On 18.7.2014, this Court ordered notice of motion in the said writ petition W.P.No.19035 of 2014 and directed the matter to be posted on 14.8.2014.

5. But, on the same day, namely 18.7.2014, the Municipality issued an auction notice and the same was published in the newspapers on 19.7.2014, inviting offers in sealed covers, to be submitted on or before 31.7.2014. Therefore, challenging the auction notice, the petitioners came up with the second writ petition, namely W.P.No.19915 of 2014. The second writ petition came up on 25.7.214 for orders as to admission. This Court directed the Additional Government Pleader to take notice and get instructions on 31.7.2014.

6. On 31.7.2014, when the matter came up before me, I directed the respondent-Municipality to proceed with the auction and inform the Court the highest bids received for the shops. But, I also directed the respondent-Municipality not to confirm the auction. Consequently, the respondent-Municipality proceeded with the auction. But, they have not so far confirmed the auction. However, a counter was filed.

7. Thereafter, two of the successful bidders came up with applications in M.P.Nos.4 and 5 of 2014 for impleading themselves as parties. The impleading petitions are now allowed, in order to facilitate consideration of all aspects.

8. I have heard Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.A.S.Thambusamy, learned counsel appearing for the Municipality and Mr.M.Gnanasekar, learned counsel for the newly impleaded parties.

9. The grievance of the petitioners are: (i) that they have been running petty business enterprises in the shops belonging to the respondent-Municipality, for the past more than three decades, depending upon the same for their livelihood; (ii) that as per G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.7.2007, the petitioners are entitled to have the licences renewed, provided they are willing to pay the market rate of rent; and (iii) that by virtue of Section 321(11) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, there is a deemed renewal in their favour, by virtue of the failure of the respondent-Municipality to pass any order on their application for renewal.

10. The respondent-Municipality contests the claim of the petitioners on the following grounds:

(i) that G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.7.2007 is not applicable to the cases of the petitioners, as the Government Order speaks only about two periods of nine years each;

(ii) that Section 321(11) applies