Judgment :- The Honourable Chief Justice: This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 6.4.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.8461 of 2004. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. It appears that the Selection Grade Panchayat, Chengam, granted lease in respect of 26 shops in Thokkapettai Town Bus Stand, Chengam, in favour of some third parties from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1998. Thereafter the lease was renewed for a further period of three years i.e. from 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2001 without putting the shops to public auction/public tender. Again the lease was renewed for another period of three years i.e. from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 in favour of the very same persons which was questioned in the writ petition by the first respondent herein. 4. In our opinion, ordinarily once the period of lease or grant of public property expires it should be put to public auction/public tender after advertising in well known newspapers having wide circulation so that everybody eligible can bid in the same, otherwise Article 14 of the Constitution will be violated. We can understand granting one or two renewals of the lease originally granted in favour of the same person, but we certainly cannot approve of extensions again and again in perpetuity as that would create monopoly in favour of the lessee. It must be realised that the lease in question is of public land and not a private land. So far as the private property is concerned, the owner can do whatever he likes with it, but in so far as public property is concerned Article 14 of the Constitution applies, and monopoly cannot be created in favour of anybody as held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal Vyas, AIR 1971 SC 2068 . 5. In the present case, the first period of lease for three years i.e. from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1998 having expired renewal was granted without holding any public auction in favour of the original lessees. We are of the opinion that repeated renewals cannot be granted as that would create a monopoly in favour of the lessee, and instead the property in question should be put to public auction/public tender after advertising the same in well known newspapers having wide circulation so that everybody eligible can bid in the same. 6. We are of the opinion that repeated renewals cannot be granted as that would create a monopoly in favour of the lessee, and instead the property in question should be put to public auction/public tender after advertising the same in well known newspapers having wide circulation so that everybody eligible can bid in the same. 6. Public property is not largesse which can be distributed or monopolised by any one. 7. For the reason given above, we find no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed. W.A.M.P.No.1644 of 2005 is dismissed.