The association could not represent the individual lessees' rights, and the auction conducted by the Municipality was fair and proper, protecting the financial interest of the Municipality.

The petitioner is an association registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, with registration No.24 of 2015. It is said to consist of members, who are lessees of shops owned by the Punjai Puliyampati Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Municipality).

2. The petitioner association seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the auction-cum-tender notification issued by the respondent Municipality, dated 27.11.2015, by which the respondent Municipality bas brought for auction, the leasehold right in respect of 71 shops owned by the respondent Municipality within its Municipal limits. The petitioner also seek for a consequential direction to the respondent Municipality to follow G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007.

3. Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the members of the petitioner association are carrying on different business activities in the shops owned by the respondent Municipality ever since 2007 and they have been promptly paying the monthly rent without default. It is submitted that the lease which was granted in favour of the members of the petitioner association was extended once in three years on an increased lease rent of 15% by following G.O.Ms.No.92 and the lease period is to come to an end on 31.03.2016. It is further submitted that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.92, three months prior to the expiry of the lease, rental value of the shops has to be reassessed and the existing lessees should be given priority to seek for renewal. However, the respondent Municipality without following such procedure had issued the impugned tender notification fixing the date of auction-cum-tender on 18.12.2015. It is submitted that failure to scrupulously follow the directions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.92, vitiates the impugned notification and the respondent Municipality should not be permitted to proceed further with the auction. It is further submitted that the members are carrying on business in the shops since 2007 and where with the fond hope that the lease would be extended in terms of G.O.Ms.No.92, but the respondent Municipality did not abide by the directions issued by the Government and therefore, the impugned notification has to be held to be illegal. The learned Senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.92 and in particular clause (iv) of the said Government Order and also referred to the Government letter dated 12.03.2009 and submitted that the members are entitled to further renewal for a period of nine years.

4. Mr.A.S.Thambuswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the Municipality raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the Writ Petition by an association. It is submitted that most of the lessees have sub-let the shops and receiving huge amounts from the sub-tenants and paying only a meagre rent to the Municipality. It is further submitted that the lease in respect of seven shops at Jawahar Main Road expired on 31.03.2015 and the Municipal Council decided to conduct auction for grant of fresh lease from 01.04.2015. Pursuant to such resolution auction notification was issued dated 27.05.2015. Five lessees filed Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.Nos.15021 to 15025 of 2015, challenging the notification, however without instruction from the Municipality, a Government Counsel had accepted notice and based on the representation, the Writ Petitions were allowed by order dated 21.05.2015. On coming to know of the said order, the respondent Municipality filed Review Application Nos.98 to 102 of 2015 and the Review Applications were allowed and the Writ Petitions were heard afresh and taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the petitioners therein requesting for extension of lease upto 31.03.2016, on payment of enhanced rent of Rs.5500 per month, they were