1. The claim of the petitioner is that respondents issued an auction notice in December, 2003 regarding the allotment of various shops in Block "C" including the Shop no. 18 in the First Floor at Tatoo Ground, Batamaloo, Srinagar. Further claim of the petitioner is that he applied for allotment of Shop no. 18 and emerged highest bidder in the auction. The shop has not been allotted to the petitioner, but respondents have issued another public notice in respect of same. Petitioner is aggrieved of the said public notice and has filed this petition on the ground that he having quoted the highest rates should have been allotted the aforementioned shop. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at the bar that petitioner had submitted an application to the respondents stating therein that he is prepared to enter into negotiations with them, so as to enable him to quote further higher rates. Learned counsel also submitted that petitioner was asked to report to the Office of the Chief Accounts Officer for the purpose of negotiations. Learned counsel sub­mitted that instead of entering into negotiations with the petitioner, impugned notice has been issued. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner had entertained reasonable expectation that he having quoted the highest rates, shop would be allotted to him. Learned counsel also submitted that without entering into negoti­ations with petitioner, impugned notice could not be issued by the respondents. 3. While distributing public largesse, it is the public interest, which is to be given preference and which has to be of utmost importance. The appropriate mode of allotting public property is mode of public auction, so as to ensure that higher revenue is earned. 4. In this case petitioner had quoted highest rates, but authorities were not satisfied and in their wisdom it appears that allotment of shop, in question, could fetch more revenue. The issuance of letter of negotiation, which letter was issued at the request of petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of this case, cannot bind the authorities to allot shop in question to petitioner. The respondents in law could not enter into negotiation with only one person. If respondents would have adopted the mode of allotting the shop through negotiations, then all the interested parties were to be given opportunity to enter into negotiations for quoting rates. One person alone cannot be invited to enter into negotiations. The respondents in law could not enter into negotiation with only one person. If respondents would have adopted the mode of allotting the shop through negotiations, then all the interested parties were to be given opportunity to enter into negotiations for quoting rates. One person alone cannot be invited to enter into negotiations. Such an act would fall foul of constitutional guarantee contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Petitioner having quoted highest rates will not become in law basis for entertaining expectations that shop may be allotted to him. The authorities in public interest are within their right not to allot shop even to the persons having quoted highest rates. Mere quoting of higher rates also does not confer any right on the petitioner to approach this Court for seeking issuance of a direction against the respondents. 6. The petitioner is not clothed with any right in law. 7. For the above stated reasons this petition, being meritless is accordingly dismissed in limni along with all connected CMPs.