SELVAM Vs. COMMISSIONER, MADURAI CORPORATION,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.R.Murali, learned Standing Counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/Corporation in all these writ Petitions.

(2.) By consent of either side, these writ petitions are taken up for disposal.

(3.) In W.P(MD)No.19394 of 2019, the Petitioner/Selvam,is running a xerox shop. In respect of four other Writ Petitions, the Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.19399 of 2019, Mr.K.Bharathi is running a Juice shop, the Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.19401 of 2019 Rajasekar is running a hotel and the Petitioner in W.P(MD)No. 19404 of 2019 is running a Tea Stall and the Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.19407 of 2019 is running a Tiffin stall. The Petitioners/Rajasekar, Rajendran and M.Saravanakumar are also similarly placed persons as that of the Petitioner in W.P(MD)No. 19394 of 2019/M.Selvam and in fact, they have got a weaker case because licence was not granted in their name. Equally so, the Petitioner K.Bharathi and in his case, the licence was issued in favour of one Sudha and licence was not transferred in the name of K.Bharathi. His case was that the licence was originally given to one Sengusamy and it was transferred to the name of Sudha and therefore, legitimately expected that the licence will be transferred in his name. In our considered view, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel will not justify or improve the case of the said Petitioner.