K SARAVANAN Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE, the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, they had been taken up together and a common order is being passed.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned.

(3.) IT has been further stated that, for the period, from 1.7.2009 to 31.3.2012, the license had been given to one A.Alagudurai, son of Arumugam of Kupanoor, by the first respondent town panchayat. However, as some of the license conditions had been violated, the license granted in favour of A.Alagudurai had been cancelled, during the month of December, 2010. Thereafter, the second respondent had given the license, for the remaining period, from 1.11.2011 to 31.3.2012. The license had been issued to the second respondent for the balance period, by way of a public auction conducted by the first respondent. The auction had been confirmed in favour of the second respondent, on payment of a license fee of Rs.2,43,996/-.