T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

1. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions, concerns a market situated within the jurisdiction of Ambasamudram Municipality and the petitioners in two writ petitions being one and the same person and the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.15185 of 2017 is his wife, the writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P(MD)No.10892 of 2017 has been filed challenging a notice dated 26.05.2017, issued by the Commissioner of the respondent Municipality, stating that the petitioner is conducting a weekly market in a Government poromboke land and though notices were issued to the petitioner on 19.05.2017 and 24.05.2017, calling upon him to produce documents in support of his claim over the property, as documents were not produced, the Council of the respondent Municipality passed a resolution No.79, dated 25.05.2017, cancelling the Property Tax Registration, standing in the name of the petitioner, in respect of the said market.

3. W.P(MD)No.10893 of 2017 has been filed challenging the proceedings of the Commissioner of the respondent Municipality, informing the petitioner that he is carrying on the market without obtaining licence and therefore the petitioner is prohibited from carrying on the market in the said location.

4. W.P(MD)No.15185 of 2017 has been filed challenging the proceedings of the Commissioner of the respondent Municipality, dated 21.07.2017, stating that un-authorisedly the petitioner has constructed a building on Government land, in which a branch of Karur Vysya Bank is functioning. The Council of the respondent Municipality passed a resolution, dated 07.07.2017, cancelling the building permission and also directed the petitioner to produce necessary documents within fifteen days to show cause as to why the building should not be sealed/demolished.

5. W.P(MD)No.16514 of 2017 has been filed by one A.Subramaniam, in which, the petitioner and the other writ petitioner have been impleaded as respondents 2 and 3 apart from the Commissioner of the respondent Municipality, District Collector, Tirunelveli District and Tahsildar, Ambasamudram Taluk, as the other respondents. The said Subramaniam seeks for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the Commissioner of the respondent Municipality, dated 23.08.2017, banning the functioning of the weekly market in the said location, pursuant to the filing of the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.10893 of 2017.

6. It would be relevant to point out that W.P(MD)Nos.10892 and 10893 of 2017 were heard by a Division Bench of this Court and by order, dated 20.07.2017, W.P(MD)No.10892 of 2017 was dismissed. The petitioner filed review applications in Review Application (MD)Nos.67 and 68 of 2017 and the Division Bench pointed out that they never intended to dismiss W.P(MD)No.10892 of 2017 and similarly interim order, which was granted in W.P(MD)No.10893 of 2017, which was not intended to be granted by the Court. Therefore, the Division Bench observed that the orders in both the writ petitions suffer from error apparent on the face of the record on account of the said interchanging. Accordingly, the orders dated 20.07.2017 and 27.07.2017 made in these two writ petitions were set aside and the review applications were allowed. This is how both the writ petitions are before this Court and heard along with the two other connected writ petitions.

7. Heard M/s. P.T.Asha, learned senior counsel representing Mr. R.Suriyanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.10892, 10893 and 15185 of 2017, Mr. K.P. Narayanakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.16514 of 2017, Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality, Mr.S.Meenakshisundaram, learned senior counsel representing Mr.N.Ga.Natraj, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent in W.P(MD)No.15185 of