ORDER A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the proposed public auction vide public notice dated 22.10.2012 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to illegally dispossess the petitioner from the shop premises without due process of law under the pretext of conducting public auction. The case of the petitioner is that he is occupant of two shop premises bearing No. 323, 323/1 (old Municipal Khata No. 386), New Khatha No. 563/515 situated at Bazaar Street, Bangarpet belonging to Acchamma Charities, Bangarpet. The petitioner claims to be paying monthly rent of ` 1,464/-. The 3rd respondent is said to be the Managing Trustee of the said authority. The petitioner contends that his father P.N. Venkatachalapathy Setty was the tenant from time immemorial and thereafter, the petitioner has become the tenant in respect of the said property. The agreement dated 5.11.1999 is relied upon to claim that the petitioner is the occupant of the said property. The case of the petitioner is also that even as of the year 2012, the rents were being paid and the rent receipts are produced at Annexure-D to the petition. The petitioner further refers to the order dated 16.7.2003 passed by the Mujarai Department wherein the claim of the petitioner to demolish the old building and put up construction has been considered and granted. In that regard, the petitioner is said to have addressed communications as at Annexures-F to H, wherein the petitioner was interested in proceeding further and putting up the construction. Since the petitioner had noticed the impugned paper publication as at Annexure-A, the petitioner is also stated to have written a letter as at Annexure-J and has approached this Court assailing the action of the respondents. 2. The respondents have filed their objection statement. It is their case that the property in question being public property under the control of the Mujarai Department as belonging to the charity is being put to best use. It is contended that in that regard an auction had been conducted and the petitioner had also participated in the said auction by depositing EMD of ` 50,000/- but he was not the successful bidder. The list of participants including the name of the petitioner is produced as Annexure-R1 to the objection statement. It is contended that in that regard an auction had been conducted and the petitioner had also participated in the said auction by depositing EMD of ` 50,000/- but he was not the successful bidder. The list of participants including the name of the petitioner is produced as Annexure-R1 to the objection statement. Further, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not in physical possession of the premises as he is living in Bangalore but had sub-let the premises on higher rent. The persons who are in occupation have also participated and succeeded in the auction in respect of the shops to which the petitioner claims and as such, the case of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 3. In the light of the rival contentions, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to the right of the petitioner to continue as tenant in respect of the premises, when the same has not been lawfully terminated nor the petitioner had been evicted from the premises. The premises will not be available for auction and therefore, auction-notice itself is contrary to law is the contention. Even otherwise, there was an understanding between the petitioner and the respondent, whereby the petitioner himself was to vacate the tenants and develop the premises. When such right is available to the petitioner, the respondent should not have auctioned the property. It is the settled position of law that unless the tenant is evicted, the property will not be available for auction and therefore, the auction notice has to be set aside and right to the petitioner is to be; protected is the contention. 4. The learned Government Advocate, on the basis of the contentions put forth in the objections statement and on the further clarification that has been sought in the instant petition, would contend that in respect of the two shops to which the petitioner claims, the persons who are in occupation therein i.e. R. Vishwanath and J.S. Sridhar Murthy have also participated in the auction and have succeeded to the said shops. It is further pointed out that out of six shops, three shops are yet to be re-auctioned as proper bids were not received in the earlier auction. It is therefore contended that petition is liable to be rejected. 5. It is further pointed out that out of six shops, three shops are yet to be re-auctioned as proper bids were not received in the earlier auction. It is therefore contended that petition is liable to be rejected. 5. In the light of the contentions, the document at Annexure-C dated 5.11.1999 would no doubt indicate that it is an article of agreement entered into between Smt. Achamma Charities and the petitioner herein relating to the property which has been described therein viz. the two shop premises. The petitioner has relied on the receipts at Annexure-D dated 25.10.2012 and 8.8.2012. Notwithstanding the said document, the question for consideration is as to whether the action of the respondents in bringing the property to public auction would be justified or not. In the instant case, apart from the fact that the petitioner claims that the property had been put in possession of the petitioner under the said document, persons who are presently in occupation is a matter of factual determination available on record as per the mahazar. Even though the mahazar as made has been disputed by the petitioner, the fact relating to the disputed question would not be gone into in a writ petition. However, in a situation where a property belonging to Charity has been auctioned, certain proceedings has taken place, this aspect of the matter would be relied to take into consideration as to whether the contention of the petitioner with regard to the tenancy right which is claimed can still be countenanced in the petition of the present nature. 6. In that regard, it is no doubt true that the petitioner also relies on the order dated 16.7.2003 and the subsequent correspondence which has been addressed by the petitioner with regard to certain arrangement that had been agreed between the parties relating to the evicting of the tenants and development of the property. Even if that aspect of the matter is kept in view, at the outset, the reliance placed is on the order of the year 2003, the first of the communication is also of the year 2003. Even if that aspect of the matter is kept in view, at the outset, the reliance placed is on the order of the year 2003, the first of the communication is also of the year 2003. Though copies of the letters dated 9.11.2009 and 22.11.2010 is relied upon, in my opinion the said letters cannot be of much importance in a circumstance if a decision of the year 2003 is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner after nearly a decade when the auction proceedings were sought to be conducted and when the right had not been asserted as per law. If at all the petitioner was serious in seeking implementation of the order of the year 2003, certainly necessary steps in that regard should have been taken except for relying on certain representations. That apart, what is also necessary to be noticed is that notwithstanding the challenge being made to the notification, the petitioner has participated in the proceedings by depositing the EMD. Though the petitioner contends that he has not thereafter tendered his bid in response to the auction, it would matter little in a present circumstance where the public property is being brought to auction by the authorities to release the best dividend in respect of the said property for being used by third parties which is the transparent and accepted procedure and no credence can be given to private transactions. Therefore, in the said circumstance, I am of the opinion that though the petitioner relies on an agreement dated 5.11.1999, much water is flown and presently the physical occupation of the premises is with different persons who have also participated in the said auction and the petitioner himself had deposited the EMD in response to the auction proceedings. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the tenancy has not been terminated and therefore, the entire auction is vitiated cannot be accepted in a proceeding of the present nature. Therefore, I am of the view that the prayers made in the instant petition are liable to be rejected and they are accordingly done and the petition therefore fails.