ORDER This writ petition is directed against the auction notification issued by the respondent as per proceedings in Na.Xa. No. 26163 of 2008-A4, dated 30.1.2009, whereby right to collect licence fee from the Municipal property was notified for auction. 2. The petitioner was a licencee of the respondent Municipality in respect of collection of fee from those who were selling flowers at the earmarked market place located in the Old Bus Stand. The petitioner was the licencee from 1995 onwards and his licence finally expired in 2007. 3. While so, the respondent has issued the impugned notification dated 30.1.2009 in respect of 22 items and tenders were called for parting with the privilege for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 with an option for renewal for a further period of two years. As per the auction notification, the intending participants have to submit their bids on or before 18.2.2009 and a public auction would be conducted at 12.30 p.m. on 18.2.2009. The petitioner intended to take part in the auction with respect to item No. 18 relating to the right to collect the licence fee from those who are running flower shops on commission basis in the dally market. According to the petitioner/ the respondent has no authority to conduct tender- cum-public auction and the same is violative of Rule 52-6(A) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Rules. Since the very procedure adopted by the respondent was against the mandatory provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Rules, the petitioner has filed the writ petition to quash the Impugned notification. 4. Thiru B. Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when a specified procedure was prescribed in Rule 52-6(A) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Rules, the respondent was bound to conduct the auction in accordance with the said rule and a different procedure has no sanction of law and as such, the impugned notification was violative of the mandatory rule. According to the learned counsel, only in exceptional cases, when sale in public auction have proved unsuccessful on at least two occasions, it would give a right to the municipality to take steps for floating tenders. 5. Thiru. According to the learned counsel, only in exceptional cases, when sale in public auction have proved unsuccessful on at least two occasions, it would give a right to the municipality to take steps for floating tenders. 5. Thiru. Pala Ramasamy, learned special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent Municipality contended that the action taken by the Municipality was in the best interest of the Municipality and there was no violation of any of the mandatory rules in the matter justifying the contention of the petitioner. According to the learned special Government Pleader, the tender-cum-auction method was adopted by the Municipalities and Panchayats throughout the State of Tamil Nadu and the very same method was also in vogue in respect of tenders floated by the Public Works Department. Therefore, there was nothing illegal on the part of the respondent in issuing the impugned notification. 6. The core question to be decided in the present writ petition is as to whether the Municipality was entitled to the method of tender- cum-auction for the purpose of parting with their privilege of collection of market fee. 7. The respondent is a Municipality. Chapter-IV of the Municipal Manual deals with receipts and expenditure of the Municipality. As per Rule 52(1), every licence or permission granted under the District Municipalities Act or any rule or by-law made thereunder shall be issued in such form as may be laid down in that behalf by the Government from time to time. Rule 52(6) deals with right to collect fees in respect of the use of any market, cart stands, slaughter houses and fisheries. Rule 52-6(A) would read thus- "In exceptional cases where sales in public auction have proved unsuccessful on at least two occasions owing to the want of bidders or due to strong combination among them or due to any other reason, the Executive Authority may invite sealed tenders for the lease and place such tenders, before the authority referred to in sub-rule (2). The latter authority shall determine which of the tenders shall be accepted. Where the tender accepted is not the highest tender, the reasons for rejecting the tender or tenders higher than the one accepted shall he recorded in writing." 8. The latter authority shall determine which of the tenders shall be accepted. Where the tender accepted is not the highest tender, the reasons for rejecting the tender or tenders higher than the one accepted shall he recorded in writing." 8. Rule 52-6 (A) provides that the Executive Authority would be within their powers to call for sealed tenders, in case the public auction conducted on two occasions were proved to be unsuccessful. Therefore, there are two methods indicated as per Rule 52-6(A). 9. A careful reading of Rule 52-6(A) clearly shows that there was no prohibition for conducting tender-cum- public auction. While considering the validity of an auction notification on the ground of violation of a mandatory procedure, the intention in framing such a rule has also to be taken note of. Public auction was the earlier mode adopted by the Municipality for parting with their right to collect the licence fee. It was considered to be a fair procedure, as the public auction would be conducted in the presence of all the participants. The procedure was considered to be a transparent one with access to one and all and on compliance of the condition for taking part in such auction, everybody has got a right to make his bid. It would also enable the Municipality to get better offers. The provision regarding sealed tender was made as an alternative method. However, there was nothing in the rules which suggest against the conduct of auction- cum-tender. The prohibition was against conduct of tender alone. The method of public auction as a procedure to part with the privilege of the Municipality was found to be disadvantages to the local body as it resulted in getting very low price. The participants would be able to get the public auction confirmed in their name at a lesser price on account of formation of cartel. Experience is the best teacher and from the past experience, the Municipality has learnt the lesson which made them to resort to a new procedure which was not in conflict with the established procedure. It was only with a view to avoid such unhealthy situation and to avoid the under dealings between the prospective bidders, the Municipality has decided to proceed with the process of tender- cum-auction. The intention was only to get the best price. 10. It was only with a view to avoid such unhealthy situation and to avoid the under dealings between the prospective bidders, the Municipality has decided to proceed with the process of tender- cum-auction. The intention was only to get the best price. 10. When the bidders resorted to a novel practice to take the licence at a lesser price by forming cartel, the Municipality was also entitled to devise a novel procedure to get the maximum price. 11. When there was no provision in the Municipal Laws, disentitling the Municipality from auctioning the rights by the method of tender-cum-public auction, it cannot be said that the action taken by the respondent was in violation of the procedure. 12. The scope of judicial review in respect of an action taken by the State as well as its instrumentalities in the realm of contract was considered by the Supreme Court in AIR 2000 SC 801 : (2000) 2 SCC 617 : (2000) 2 MLJ 72 and it was observed thus at pp. 75 & 76 of MLJ: "7. The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, Fertiliser Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., Tata Cellular v. Union of India, Ramniklal Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the decision making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interferences, the Court should intervene." (emphasis supplied) 13. The procedure adopted by the Municipality, whether it be the public auction or tenders, was only for the purpose of fetching a reasonable price for their property. There is no specific provision in the Municipalities Act or rules made thereunder against the conduct of tender-cum-public auction as a mode of auctioning the privileges of the Municipality. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner. 14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.