Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the resolution dated 30.11.2009 which is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to implement the resolution dated 14.02.2008. 2. The petitioner is stated to have been carrying his business of selling fire crackers at a shop premises in Kalsanka junction, Udupi. The District administration on finding it necessary to widen the road had attempted to evict the persons in occupation. In that circumstance, the petitioner was one among the other persons who had approached this Court in W.P. No.12651/2007 alleging that it is without due process of law. When the said petition was pending, the petitioner had also made representation to the Deputy Commissioner, who was also the Administrator of the respondent-Municipal Council. In the said representation, the petitioner had sought for alternate accommodation for the purpose of running his business. The Administrator by the order dated 14.02.2008 was of the view that the petitioner could be allotted one shop premises in the building belonging to the respondent-Municipal Council subject to the condition that the petitioner would pay the same license fee that would be fixed as license fee in the auction that would be conducted in respect of the remaining four shops in the said building. The order was also passed by the Deputy Commissioner subject to the condition that the petitioner would not agitate the question relating to his eviction from the earlier shop as had been putforth in W.P.No.12651/2007. Since petitioner had withdrawn his challenge therein, the Administrator had taken a decision in that regard. 3. Subsequently when the elected body was in place, the elected body has passed the impugned resolution dated 30.11.2009. By the said resolution, the concession granted to the petitioner has been withdrawn. The petitioner is therefore aggrieved by the said resolution. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the elected body of the respondents was not justified in passing the resolution inasmuch as they had no jurisdiction to withdraw the earlier order which has been passed by the Administrator. Furthermore, by the order passed by the Administrator, the interest of the respondent-Municipal Council had also been kept in view and therefore the action taken is without basis. Furthermore, by the order passed by the Administrator, the interest of the respondent-Municipal Council had also been kept in view and therefore the action taken is without basis. That apart, it is contended that the petitioner was before this Court in an earlier writ petition and the same had been withdrawn only for the reason that concession would be granted to the petitioner for occupation and in any event, the petitioner would have paid the same license fee that would have been paid by the other shop owners. Hence, the learned counsel contends that the petition is to be allowed and appropriate direction be issued. 5. The respondents have filed objection statement and have opposed the contention put forth in the petition. It is their case that the when the property belong to the Municipality, the same can only be granted by following the transparent procedure and therefore the shop cannot be granted to the petitioner out of turn. The elected body has taken note of all the aspects of the matter and thereafter passed a resolution which is in consonance with the established position of law and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek for any relief. 6. In the light of the above, first and foremost, the question that would arise for consideration is as to whether the resolution passed by the elected body on 30.11.2009 is to be faulted by this Court only for the reason that the earlier order dated 14.02.2008 had been passed by the Administrator and was in subsistence. The legal position cannot be in dispute that insofar as the authorities and the public bodies are concerned, they would have to act in accordance with law while dealing with their property. Therefore, even if the Administrator had passed an earlier order and the elected body had found that the same was contrary to the well established position of law, certainly they were entitled to pass the subsequent resolution to bring it in accordance with law. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, the legal position that the properties belonging to the public bodies and the Government cannot be granted a largess is the well established position and this Court in fact while rejecting the interim prayer had also taken note of these aspects of the matter. 7. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, the legal position that the properties belonging to the public bodies and the Government cannot be granted a largess is the well established position and this Court in fact while rejecting the interim prayer had also taken note of these aspects of the matter. 7. In such circumstance, when the resolution dated 30.11.2009 is in accordance with law, I see no reason to quash the same. Hence the second prayer to implement the order dated 14.02.2008 would not arise for consideration. Needless to mention that if the shop is still available and if the same is put to auction, it would be open for the petitioner also to participate in such auction. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.