IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 15.3.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition Nos.1336, 1337, 2435, 2436, 3045, 3960, 3985, 4523, 4752, 4753, 5009, 5108 and 5181 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 in W.P.Nos.1336, 1337, 2435, 2436, 3045, 3960, 3985 and 4523 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.Nos.5009, 5108 and 5181 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 in 4752 and 4753 of 2010 and M.P.No.2 of 2010 in W.P.No.4523 of 2010 Thiru.J.Sudhakar. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.1336 of 2010 Tmt.S.Jaya. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.1337 of 2010 Thiru A.M.Nazar Ali. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.2435 and 2436 of 2010 Thiru K. Kathiravan. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.3045 of 2010 Thiru C.R.Vinayagam. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.3960 of 2010 -Vs.- 1.The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore -641 001. 2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents in 1336, 1337, 2435, 2436, 3045 and 3960 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.3985 of 2010:- Thiru V.K.Rahamathulla. ... Petitioner -Vs.- The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore -641 001. ... Respondent W.P.No.4523 of 2010:- S.Anbukumar. ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, representation by the Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The District Collector, Vellore District. 3.The Commissioner, Kandili Panchayat Union, Kandili, Vellore District. .. Respondents W.P.No.4752 of 2010:- Thiru M.Abdul Rahim. ... Petitioner -Vs.- 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Distribution Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Vellore. 3.The Commissioner, Vellore Corporation, Vellore. ... Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.4753 of 2010:- Thiru A.R.Mahaboob Basha ... Petitioner -Vs.- 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Distribution Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Vellore. 3.The Commissioner, Vellore Corporation, Vellore. ... Respondents W.P.No.5009 of 2010:- Thiru M.Manoharan. ... Petitioner -Vs.- 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore -641 001. ... Respondents W.P.No.5108 of 2010:- Thiru M.Abbas. ... Petitioner -Vs.- 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore -641 001. ... Respondents W.P.No.5181 of 2010:- Tamilselvi. ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore -641 001. ... Respondents Writ Petition Nos.1336, 1337, 2435, 2436, 3045 and 3960 of 2010 are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.0209/2010/R3, dated 8.1.2010 and quash the same consequently direct the first respondent to extend the lease period for 3 years (i.e.) upto 31.3.2012. Writ Petition No.3985 of 2010 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notification issued by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.12974/2009/A7 dated 13.2.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to extend the lease period for 3 years (i.e.) upto 31.3.2012 as per the orders of the Government issued in G.O.(Ms.)No.78 MAWS dated 25.5.2009. Writ Petition No.4523 of 2010 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.A6/300/2010 dated 10.2.2010 and quash the same in so far as it relates to Sl.No.2 relating to the auction which is scheduled to be held on 4.3.2010 for the right to collect fees from the Mattrapalli Weekly market and direct the respondents to extend the said right in favour of the petitioner for the second year and third year on 5% increase for the successive years up to 31.3.2012. Writ Petition No.4752 of 2010 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to renew for remaining 2 years https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i.e.) 2010-11 and 2011-12 for item 5 and 10 as per G.O.(Ms.) No.78MAWS dated 25.5.2009. Writ Petition No.4753 of 2010 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to renew for remaining 2 years (i.e.) 2010-11 and 2011-12 for item 8 and 9 as per G.O.(Ms.) No.78MAWS dated 25.5.2009. Writ Petition Nos.5009, 5108 and 5181 of 2010 are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent made in Na.Ka.No.9659/2009/A1 dated 13.2.2010 pertaining to Item No.1, 2 and 11 respectively in the notification and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to extend the license/lease period upto 31.3.2013 in accordance with G.O.(Ms.)No.78 MA and WS Department dated 25.5.2009. For petitioner in W.P.Nos.1336, 1337, 2435, 2436, 3045 and 3960 of 2010 : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Jenasenan For petitioner in W.P.No.3895 of 2010 : No appearance For petitioner in W.P.No.4523 of 2010 : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, for Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi. For petitioner in W.P.Nos.4752 and 4753 of 2010 : Mr.P.Subba Reddy For petitioner in W.P.Nos.5009, 5108 and 5181 of 2010 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan For respondent in W.P.No.3985 of 2010 and 2nd respondent in W.P.No.5108 of 2010 and first respondent in W.P.Nos.1336 and 1337, 2435 and 2436, 3045 and 3960 of 2010 : Mr.U.Karunakaran For second respondent in W.P.Nos.5009, 5108 and 5181 of 2010 : Mr.R.Sivakumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For third respondent in W.P.No.4523 of 2010 : Mr.D.Sreenivasan, Additional Government Pleader For respondent 2 and 3 in W.P.Nos.1336, 1337, 2435 and 2436, 3045, 3960, respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.Nos.4752 and 4753 of 2010 and first respondent in W.P.Nos.5009 and 5108 of 2010, respondents 1 and 2 in 4523 of 2010 and third respondent in W.P.Nos.4752 and 4753 of 2010 : Mr.S.Sivashanmugam, Government Advocate COMMON ORDER Writ Petition Nos.1336, 1337, 2435, 2436, 3045 and 3960 of 2010 are filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.0209/2010/R3, dated 8.1.2010 and quash the same consequently direct the first respondent to extend the lease period for 3 years (i.e.) upto 31.3.2012. 2. Writ Petition No.3985 of 2010 is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notification issued by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.12974/2009/A7 dated 13.2.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to extend the lease period for 3 years (i.e.) upto 31.3.2012 as per the orders of the Government issued in G.O.(Ms.)No.78 MAWS dated 25.5.2009. 3. Writ Petition No.4523 of 2010 is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.A6/300/2010 dated 10.2.2010 and quash the same in so far as it relates to Sl.No.2 relating to the auction which is scheduled to be held on 4.3.2010 for the right to collect fees from the Mattrapalli Weekly market and direct the respondents to extend the said right in favour of the petitioner for the second year and third year on 5% increase for the successive years up to 31.3.2012. 4. Writ Petition No.4752 of 2010 is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to renew for remaining 2 years (i.e.) 2010-11 and 2011-12 for item 5 and 10 as per G.O.(Ms.)No.78MAWS dated 25.5.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Writ Petition No.4753 of 2010 is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to renew for remaining 2 years (i.e.) 2010-11 and 2011-12 for item 8 and 9 as per G.O.(Ms.)No.78MAWS dated 25.5.2009. 6. Writ Petition Nos.5009, 5108 and 5181 of 2010 are filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent made in Na.Ka.No.9659/2009/A1 dated 13.2.2010 pertaining to Item No.1, 2 and 11 respectively in the notification and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to extend the license/lease period upto 31.3.2012 in accordance with G.O.(Ms.)No.78 MA and WS Department dated 25.5.2009. 7. Petitioner in each one of the cases is a licencee for the period of one year (i.e.) 2009-2010 for the works as mentioned below:- Sl. No. W.P.No. Work Lease period Relief sought for 1 1336 of 2010 For collection at pay and use toilet at the Daily Market, Mettuplayam Road 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 2 1337 of 2010 For collection of fee from the Vendors at the Daily Market, Mettupalayam Road and also for the parking Vehicles for the year 2009-2010 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 3 2435 of 2010 For collection of fee at Pay and Use Toilet at Panneer Selvam Flower Market, Coimbatore 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 4 2436 of 2010 For collection of Entry Fee to the Vehicles at Sakthi Road Omni Bus Stand, Coimbatore 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 5 3045 of 2010 For collection of fee from the two wheelers and 4 wheelers parking at Corporation Hospital Complex at Rajaveedhi, Coimbatore 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No. W.P.No. Work Lease period Relief sought for 6 3960 of 2010 (i) For collection of fee at pay and use toilet at Vegetable market, Mettupalayam Road (ii) Collection of fee at pay and use toilet at Thadagam Road, Coimbatore 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 7 3985 of 2010 Collection of fee at pay and use toilet at Srinivasapuram, Coimbatore 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 8 4523 of 2010 Right to collect fees in the weekly market at Mattrapalli. Ten months ending 31.3.2010 (2009- 2010) For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 9 4752 of 2010 Sl.No.5:- Collection of fee from two wheelers, buses, cars parking at Vellore Municipal old bus stand. Sl.No.10:- Collection of fee for usage of toilet No.3 near the cloak room at Vellore old bus stand 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 10 4753 of 2010 Sl.No.8:- Collection of fee for usage of toilet No.1 opposite to Corporation Office, at Vellore Municipal bus stand. Sl.No.9:- Collection of fee for usage of toilet No.2 Backside of Burma Bazaar Shops at Vellore Municipal bus stand 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No. W.P.No. Work Lease period Relief sought for 11 5009 of 2010 Collection of fees for Thyagi Kumarn Ground Shops, Coimbatore 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 12 5108 of 2010 Collection of usage fees at Ramar Kovil Street Market, Coimbatore 2009-2010 For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 13 5181 of 2010 Collection of usage charges for Modern Toilet situate at Thyagi Kumaran Markekt. 1.5.2009 to 31.3.2010 (2009- 2010) For extension of further period of two years upto 31.3.2012 8. According to the petitioners, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.78 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 25.5.2009 issued orders notifying the licence period as three years instead of one year with effect from 2009- 2010. Contrary to the above said G.O., the respondent Corporations issued Notification calling for tenders for the above said works for three years from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2012 without considering the petitioners plea for extending the licence. Petitioner states that as per above G.O., fresh tenders for the above works should be called for from the year 2012-2013 only. Accordingly, the petitioner in each one of the cases are entitled to get extension of the licence period for another two years (i.e.) upto 20.11.2012 and the above writ petitions are filed seeking the reliefs as above. 9. The issue relates on the interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.78 Municipal Administration and and Water Supply Department 25.5.2009. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of G.O.Ms.No.78 Municipal Administration and and Water Supply Department dated 25.5.2009 reads as follows:- @3) efuhl;rp eph;thf ,af;Fehpd; fUj;JUit muR ed;F ftdKld; ghprPyid bra;J. mf;fUj;JUit Vw;fyhk; vd Kot[ bra;J. Vw;fdnt efuhl;rpfSf;Fk; ngU:uhl;rpfSf;Fk; bghUe;Jk; tifapy; murhiz (epiy) vz; 181. ehs; 19/9/2008?y; btspaplg;gl;Ls;s Mizfspd; mog;gilapy; khefuhl;rpfspYs;s m';fhofs;. ngU:e;J epiya';fs;. re;ijfs;. kpjptz;o epWj;j';fs;. fl;lz fHpg;gpl';fs; kw;Wk; j';Fk; tpLjpfs; nghd;w midj;J ,d';fspYk; fl;lz';fs; tN:ypf;Fk; chpikf;fhd Fj;jif fhy msit fPnH https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s epge;jidf;Fl;gl;L. Vw;fdnt eilKiwapYs;s Xuhz;oypUe;J K:d;whz;Lfshf khw;wpaikj;J muR MizapLfpwJ/ ,t;thiz 2009?2010 Mk; Mz;L Kjyhd Fj;jif ,d';fSf;F kl;Lnk bghUe;Jk; vdt[k;. eilKiwapYs;s Fj;jif ,d';fSf;F bghUe;jhJ/ Vw;fdnt eilKiwapy; cs;s Fj;jiffisg; bghWj;j kl;oy; mj;jifa Fj;jiffSf;fhd gj;jpu';fspy; cs;s epge;jidfns bghUe;Jk;/ mj;jifa ,d';fSf;fhd Fj;jiff;fhyk; Kot[ bgw;w gpd;dnu. khw;wpaikf;fg;glt[s;s Fj;jif epge;jidfs; bghUe;Jk; vd;w epge;jidf;Fl;gl;Lk; muR MizapLfpwJ/ i) Muk;gj;jpy; Vyj;jpd; K:yk; bgwg;gLk; Fj;jif bjhifapy; ,uz;lhkhz;oy; 5# Fj;jif bjhif cah;t[k;. K:d;whk; Mz;oy; Ke;ija Mz;od; bjhifapy; 5# Fj;jif bjhif cah;t[k;. bra;ayhk;/ cjhuzkhf 5# Fj;jif cah;t[j; bjhif fPH;f;Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sthW mika[k;/ Muk;g Mz;L Fj;jif bjhif :U:/100 vd;why; (U:gha; E}W kl;Lk;) ,uz;lhk; tUlj;jpw;fhd Fj;jif bjhif U:/105 (U:gha; E}w;wp Ik;gJ kl;Lk;) K:d;whk; tUlj;jpw;fhd Fj;jif bjhif U:/110/25 (U:gha; E}w;wp gj;J kw;Wk; ,Ugj;J Ie;J igrh kl;Lk; Mf ,Uf;Fk;/ ii) K:d;whz;LfSf;bfhU Kiw m';fhofs;. ngU:e;J epWj;j';fs;. re;ijfs;. irf;fps; epWj;j';fs;. fl;lz fHpg;gpl';fs;. j';Fk; tpLjpfs; Mfpa ,d';fspy; fl;lzk; tN:ypf;Fk; chpik bghJ Vyj;jpy; tplg;gl ntz;Lk;/ iii) K:d;whz;L fhy mst[ vd;w xU bjhFg;g[ fhy mstpw;Fs; fl;lzk; tN:ypf;Fk; Fj;jifjhuh; fhykhdhy;. mth;fspd; thhpRjhuh;fs; Fj;jifjhuuhf mt;t[hpkj;ij bgwyhk;/ thhpRjhuUf;F tpUg;gk; ,y;iybadpy;. chpik kW Vyk; tplg;gLk;/ iv) ,itfs; jtpu khefuhl;rpapYs;s m';fhofs;. ngU:e;J epWj;j';fs;. re;ijfs;. irf;fps; epWj;j';fs;. fl;lz fHpg;gpl';fs;. j';Fk; tpLjpfs; nghd;w ,d';fspy; fl;lzk; tN:ypf;Fk; chpikfis Fj;jiff;F tpLtjw;fhf. Vw;fdnt https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ eilKiwapy; cs;s midj;J epge;jidfSk; bjhlUk;/ 4) khefuhl;rp btspapLk; Mz;Lf; Fj;jif mwptpf;iffspy; Fj;jif epge;jidfs; kw;Wk; tiuaiwfis jf;fthW jpUj;jpaikg;gjw;fhf khefuhl;rpfSf;F efuhl;rp eph;thf Mizah; Mnyhrid mspf;f ntz;Lk;/ gy Mz;LfSf;F Kd; tiuaWf;fg;gl;l Fj;jifg; gj;jpu gotj;ij jw;fhy khw;w';fSf;nfw;g jpUj;jp mikf;FkhW efuhl;rp eph;thf Mizah; nfl;Lf; bfhss;ggLfpwhh;/ 5) nkw;brhd;d bewpKiwfis efuhl;rp eph;thf Mizah; jtwhJ gpd;gw;w ntz;Lk; vdt[k; ,J Fwpj;J chpa tpjpfis jpUj;jpaikg;gjw;fhd braw;Fwpg;gpid efuhl;rp eph;thf Mizah; muRf;F mDg;gp itf;f ntz;Lk; vdt[k; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;/@ (emphasis supplied) 10. All the petitioners are successful bidders and have the licence to collect fee in respect of various facilities enumerated in paragraph 7 above. The licence period is 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 (i.e.) for a period of one year only and is to expire shortly. The Government has now changed its policy in respect of the licence period in G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. The said G.O.No.78 is now the bone of contention between the petitioners and the Department on an interpretation with regard to the period to which it will apply. 11. According to the learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, the licence should be extended for a further period in terms of para 3(i) of the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. According to him, the licence has to be extended for the second and third year on payment of the enhanced amount specified in the Government Order. It is also contended that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of para 3 of the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 as the G.O. applies to all auctions conducted in 2009-2010. Since the petitioners are successful bidders in an auction conducted for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010, they are entitled to automatic extension in terms of para 3(i) of the above G.O. Therefore, the Notification issued by the respondent corporations, viz., the corporation in each one of the writ petitions is contrary to the said G.O. Petitioners contend that the auction Notification should be set aside, and the petitioners should be given the benefit of extension invoking the para 3(i) of the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. 12. In the same manner Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for the other petitioners, while reiterating the above contention, relied upon the Division Bench Judgment in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A.Srinivasan and 25 others – vs. - The District Collector, Kancheepuram District reported in 2008(3) CTC 800 to contend that the petitioner who is having a subsisting licence is entitled to extension drawing analogy to the above said decision wherein the existing Virgin quarrying licence holders were given the benefit of extension of lease based on the amended rules. In that case, the virgin quarry lease holders were initially given five years period and after the amendment in the rules they were given the benefit of the extended period. In the same manner, the petitioners in all these cases are entitled to automatic extension of the licence after completion of one year period in terms of G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. 13. Heard Sri S.Sivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate who appears for the State and submits that there is no ambiguity in the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 and the interpretation given by the petitioners is misconceived and does not stand to reason as the pith and substance of the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 is in modification of the earlier policy. He pointed out that, earlier, the auction was conducted for grant of licence for a period of one year. This was in vogue in respect of town panchayat and municipality and corporation as well. Thereafter, the Government took a policy decision to change the period of licence from one year to three years for administrative reasons. In furtherance to this object G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 19.9.2008 was issued in respect of town panchayat and Municipality. The said G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 19.9.2008 came into effect with effect from 2009-2010. In the same lines, the Government issued the present G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. In the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009, it has been clearly indicated that the three years period is to be followed, keeping in line with G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 19.9.2008. The petitioners have misconstrued the period in G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 on the impression that it applies to all licence of the year 2009-2010 without considering the fact that there is a specific exclusion in that the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 will not apply to all subsisting licence. It is clearly stated that subsisting licence holder will be bound by the terms and conditions as specified in the auction in which the petitioners were declared as successful bidders. The new terms and conditions will apply for the next period as in this case. In other words the one year period has to come to close and the three years period as per G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 will come into operation by a fresh auction. There is no automatic extension contemplated in the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. He pointed out that the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 specifically mandates three years period in contrast to the one year period which was in vogue earlier. There is no specific clause giving a right to the petitioners to seek extension of the one year licence which will come to a close on 31.3.2010. In the absence of specific indication, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of automatic extension. In any event, the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 is prospective and not retrospective. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. Having considered the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief of extension of licence period interpreting the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 in the manner in which they want to for the following reasons:- (i) Though the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 specifically states that it will apply to all licence for the period 2009-2010, it specifically excludes the subsisting licence. Therefore, the petitioners stand excluded. It will apply to licence that will be granted after issuance of the Government Order. (ii) Para 3(iii) of the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 states that the auction should be conducted for three years period meaning thereby that it will operate in the future. The auction, therefore, will be for a three year period and not one year as in the case earlier. There is no question of auction if extension is contemplated. Since it is a three year licence auction, extension does not arise. (iii) The policy decision of the Government was a change from the previous position inasmuch as the licence which has been granted for a period of one year was modified to three years as in the case of town panchayat and municipality in G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 19.9.2008. In view of the specific wording in para 3 of G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 which excludes all subsisting licence holders, the question of subsisting licence holders seeking extension does not arise. Para 3 of the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 is emphatic that the existing licence holders are bound by the terms and conditions on which the licence was granted, which in effect means that the petitioners whose licence ends by 31.3.2010 are not entitled to seek extension. At the time of auction, and confirmation earlier, there is no condition that the licence will be extended for a further period. Their licence term is fixed (i.e.) from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010. (iv) The direction issued in the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 clearly states that all terms and conditions should be suitably amended to be incorporated in the licence conditions to be applied to the licence to be granted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. Hence, it is clear that the three year period is a change in the policy and there is no specific clause for extension of the subsisting licence. (v) The plea of the petitioners that the terms and conditions will apply to all the licence of the year 2009-2010 cannot be accepted on the well stated principle that the Government Orders and Rules have to be read prospectively and not retrospectively unless there is a specific indication in the said G.O., that it will operate retrospectively. In the present case, there is a specific clause in para 3 of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 that it will not apply to the subsisting licence, and hence it is prospective in nature. This view stands fortified by the decisions of Courts and a few are cited hereunder:- (i) N.T.Devin Katti – vs. - Karnataka Public Service Commission and others reported in (1990)3 SCC 157 and (ii) M/s.Kusumam Hotels (P) Ltd., - vs. - Kerala State Electricity Board reported in A.I.LR. 2008 Supreme Court 2796. Para 17 of the decision reads as follows:- "17. It is a well settled principle of law that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies to the State. It is also not in dispute that all administrative orders ordinarily are to be considered prospective in nature. When a policy decision is required to be given a retrospective operation, it must be stated so expressly or by necessary implication. The authority issuing such direction must have power to do so. The Board, having acted pursuant to the decision of the State, could not have taken a decision which would be violative of such statutory directions. 15.5.1999 was fixed as the cut-off date by the Board. It, by itself, could not have done so. But the State for issuing the GO dated 26.9.2000 could have fixed the said cut-off date on its own. We although do not agree that by granting retrospectivity to the said order, the entirety of the Government Order should be set aside the same or per se would be held to be unreasonable, but what we mean to say is that it could be given effect to only from the date of the order, i.e., prospectively and not from an anterior date, i.e.,, retrospectively." (vi) Even assuming that the wording in G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009 indicates that it applies to the licence of the year 2009-2010, in view of the exclusion clause in respect of subsisting licence, the petitioners cannot claim any benefit under the G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 25.5.2009. They bound by the terms and conditions on which their licence was granted and they have acted upon it. 15. Insofar as the contention raised by Thiru AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel placing reliance on 2008 (3) CTC 800 (cited supra) is concerned, it will not apply to the facts of the present case for the following reasons:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) The said case relates to the mines and minerals and the lease was granted in respect of virgin areas where quarrying operation was not done previously. On going through the facts of the said case, it appears that the petitioners were successful