S.S. Sundar, J.

1. The above Writ Petitions have been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order of the 6th respondent in Resolution Nos. 1060 to 1077 and Resolution No. 1081, dated 29.05.2015 and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to issue a fresh auction-cum-tender, for leasing out the proposed shops, in front of the Municipal Bus stand, Thirumangalam and consequently, to direct the 4th respondent to conduct a detailed investigation, on the illegal contract of lease issued by the 6th respondent, in favour of respondents 7 to 22.

2. The petitioner, who once served as Vice-Chairman of Thirumangalam Municipality, Madurai District and who is interested in taking the lease of 18 shops belonged to the Municipality, which are constructed in front of the Municipal Bus-stand, Thirumangalam, has filed the above Writ Petition. The case of the petitioner is that without conducting public auction and without even publishing auction notice in any of the newspaper, 18 shops to be constructed by Thirumangalam Municipality are given to respondents 7 to 22, by way of lease, by the impugned Resolution of Thirumangalam Municipality, by confirming the alleged auction conducted for 18 shops, on 15.05.2015, as per the decision of 6th respondent.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that there was an Agenda in the meeting convened by the 6th respondent, the Chairman of Thirumangalam Municipality pertaining to the confirmation of auction conducted for 18 shops on 15.05.2015 wherein, respondents 7 to 22 seemed to have participated and that the petitioner was shocked, as there was no such public auction or auction notice published in any of the newspaper or any communication to the existing contractors about the said public lease. It is further stated by the petitioner that it is a fraudulent agreement between respondents 5 to 22 and they created false records, as if there were advertisements and ultimately, the proposed 18 shops were leased out in favour of the close relatives of 6th respondent and other political office bearers and staff of Thirumangalam Municipality. It is alleged that even before commencement of construction of the shops, the shops were leased out by creating records. The lease in favour of respondents 7 to 22 is an illegal contract out of the conspiracy made between respondents 5 to 22. According to the petitioner, if a proper enquiry is conducted by the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai, the 4th respondent, truth will come out and will prove the illegal nexus between the respondents 5 to 22 resulting in heavy loss to the Municipality.

4. The petitioner's specific case is that the lease were granted in favour of respondents 7 to 22 by the impugned Resolution without following any of the procedures contemplated, under the District Municipalities Act, and the confirmation of lease by the impugned Resolution, is against the interest of Thirumangalam Municipality and public. The following are the factual details that were given by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition:-

a. The 22nd second respondent, one M. Balamurugan is a close relative of the Vice-Chairman of Thirumangalam Municipality and that he was given the contract, for the construction of shops proposed. The same Balamurugan, the 22nd respondent, has also secured the lease of some of the shops in the alleged auction.

b. One M. Kanrna, the 12th respondent, is one of the successful allottee of the shops, who is the son of sitting MLA of Thirumangalam Constituency viz., Thiru. Muthu Ramalingam.

c. One Mr. M. Mukesh is the successful allottee of one of the shop and the same Mukesh is the son of Chariman's sister-in-law.

d. One Ms. K. Deepa, the 16th respondent, has been allotted one of the shop and she is the sister of a staff of Thirumangalam Municipality, by name Madan Raj.

e. There is an illegal nexus between the Chairman of Thirumangalam Municipality and some of the oth