WP(C) 2264/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. R Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. BJ Talu kdar, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. Heard also Mr. S Bora, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein are licencees under the Gauhati Municipal Cor poration (hereinafter referred to as ’GMC’) in respect of two stalls, namely, St all Nos. 32 & 33 of Ganeshguri market. The present petitioner entered into an ag reement of tenancy with respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 being, under the said agreement, landlord/lessor and the present petitioner bein g tenant/lessee. Admittedly, as alicencee, under the GMC, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had no transfer able right and could not have created any tenancy in favour of the present petit ioner in respect of the said two stalls. The agreement between the parties was, thus, exfacie illegal. This apart, the said agreement is not binding on the GMC. It is in such circumstances that the corporation has given the impugned notice, dated 16-06-2009, to the present petitioner, directing him to vacate the said t wo stalls within 48 hours from the time of issue of notice making it clear there in that in the event of failure of the petitioner to vacate the said stalls, the GMC would take necessary measures to evict the petitioner from the said two sta lls. The transaction/agreement, which the petitioner had entered into with respo ndent Nos. 5 and 6, being illegal, no enforceable right accrues in favour of the petitioner as against the GMC. It is, however, contended, on behalf of the petitioner, that the GMC would conti nue with the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as their licensee even if the petitioner va cates the said two stalls and, hence, the GMC shall be restrained from evicting the petitioner. Suffice it to point out here that the petitioner derives, as alr eady indicated above, no enforceable right from the transaction/agreement, which he entered into with respondent Nos. 5 and 6. In such circumstances, no writ pe tition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can be maintained at the behest of the petitioner, when he has no legally enforceable right. It is also pointed out, on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner has alr eady instituted a suit and there is an order directing the parties to maintain s tatus quo and that the impugned notice, dated 16-06-2009, goes contrary to the s aid direction given to the parties concerned. In this regard, it is note worthy that if the notice, dated 16-06-2009, is in violation of the direction given by the Civil Court, the remedy does not lie in filing this writ petition under Arti cle 226 and the remedy, if any, lies in taking appropriate action as indicated i n the Code of Civil Procedure and the other laws relevant thereto. Having, thus, considered all aspects of the petitioner’s grievance, this Court d oes not find that the petitioner has been able to make out any case warranting t his Court’s exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The writ p etition is, therefore, not admitted and shall accordingly stand dismissed. It is , however, made clear, before parting with this writ petition, that the petition er shall remain at liberty to make appropriate application to the GMC seeking al lotment of the said two stalls, as a licensee, and if such an application is mad e, the GMC shall examine the same and do the needful in accordance with law.