M.VENUGOPAL, J.

The Appellant/Association has filed the present intra-Court Writ Appeal as against the order dated 18.02.2016 in W.P.No.39436 of 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

2.The Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order on 18.02.2016 in W.P.No.39436 of 2015 (filed by the Appellant/ Petitioner/Association) at paragraph 13 had observed the following:

“13. .... Reference was also made to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of A.Sathar vs. District Collector, Coimbatore & Anr., reported in AIR 1998 Madras 217, where the Hon'ble Division Bench pointed out that the extension granted earlier by the Panchayat would not mean that appellant therein is entitled to continue in possession of the premises in question for ever by paying ridiculously low rent and extension of lease to the said appellant is against the interest of the Panchayat. Thus, it was held that the interest of the Panchayat cannot be jeopardised by permitting the appellant therein to continue in possession of the premises in question at the enhanced rate of 15%. Further reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram & Shyam & Co., vs. State of Haryana and Ors., reported in (1989) 3 SCC 267, wherein it was held that disposal of public property partakes the character of a trust in that in its disposal, there should be nothing hanky panky and it must be done at the best price, so that larger revenue coming into the coffers of the State Administration would serve public purpose. Further, identical grounds raised before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1471 of 2014, was rejected by judgment dated 12.11.2014 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 18.12.2014. The other decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent, are in support of the conclusion taken by this Court, which ultimately can lead to the only decision in rejecting the prayer sought for.”

and resultantly, dismissed the Writ Petition.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Welfare Association submits that the order of the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition is against all cannons of law and violative of well settled principles and therefore, liable to be quashed in the eye of Law.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant urges before this Court that the Learned Single Judge had failed to note that membership of the four Petitioners who were litigants in the earlier writ petitions in W.P.Nos.15021 to 15025 of 2015 and thereby being members of the Appellant/Association which had chosen to challenge the subsequent impugned notification of the Respondent/Municipality and that too when the cause which was focused in the said writ petitions were totally and materially different could not be stated to have been granted any reprieve in so far as the impugned notification which is against the G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 03.07.2007 and that of the clarificatory Letter No.6655/Na Thi 4(2/09-1) dated 12.03.2009.

5. It is represented on behalf of the Appellant that the Learned Single Judge had committed an error in dismissing the Writ Petition on technicalities as well as on merits without recourse to the factual matrix.

6. Added further, it is the stand of the Appellant that the 2nd Respondent/Municipality under the garb of revenue for it so as to use the said for the welfare of the public had chosen to resort to an innovative method of conducting auction cum tender which would ultimately result in the competitive price of the highest bidder becoming impracticable of performance and resultantly the Municipality's exchequer being put to loss.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant projects an argument that if the members of the Appellant/Association were made to accept for a reasonable increase rather than what was prescribed in the Government Order so as to say 100% increase