Judgment :- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not according permission and leasing out shop No.34 of Agricultural Market Yard, Anantapur, for storage and ripening of fruits, in favour of the petitioner without assigning any reasons, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has averred that he has participated in an auction held by respondent No.2- Agricultural Market Committee, Anantapur, on 16-03-2009; that he became the highest bidder for shop No.3; and that since then, he has been in occupation of the said shop. He has further averred that he was also in occupation of godown No.5 and that the same was allotted to him subject to the condition that as and when new shops are constructed, he shall vacate the same. The petitioner pleaded that the cause of action for filing the present Writ Petition arose as respondent No.2 has not allotted shop No.34, which is vacant, even though respondent No.3 has issued order on 19-06-2012, regularizing possession of the persons, who unauthorisedly occupied shop Nos.43, 42, 55, 32, 21, 46, 45, 40 and 41. On behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 4, a counter-affidavit is filed wherein they have stated that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of shop No.3; that he is liable to pay market fees of Rs.1,89,162/- per annum; and that as and when he clears off the said arrears, they will allot shop No.34 to him. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has earlier filed WP.No.10178 of 2011 for almost an identical relief and this Court dismissed the same, on 18-10-2011, by observing in no uncertain terms that as per the settled administrative principle, the State largesse is to be distributed in a transparent manner through public auction and that therefore, the petitioner has no vested right to demand allotment of a particular shop. It was further observed that as and when auction is held for allotment of the newly constructed shops, the petitioner shall be free to participate in such auction. It is somewhat astounding to note that the respondents appear to have not been following the transparent method of putting the shops to auction. It was further observed that as and when auction is held for allotment of the newly constructed shops, the petitioner shall be free to participate in such auction. It is somewhat astounding to note that the respondents appear to have not been following the transparent method of putting the shops to auction. This is quite evident from the proceeding in Roc.No.77/2012, dated 19-06-2012, issued by the Regional Joint Director of Marketing, Kadapa, wherein he has referred to the instructions, dated 19-03-2012, of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Marketing, and directed allotment of nine newly constructed shops to the commission agents, who were in unauthorized occupation of the same. One is really at a loss to know as to how the shops, constructed by an Agricultural Market Committee with State funds, are allowed to be unauthorisedly occupied by private persons. It is a matter of grave concern that instead of evicting the unauthorized occupants, the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing issues instructions to his subordinate officials to regularize such unauthorsied occupation. Such procedure falls foul of the established principle that the State largesses need to be distributed through public auction as far as possible. Yielding to the demands of unauthorised occupants, as in the present case, places premium on lawlessness. Since regularization of allotment of those shops is not the subject matter of this Writ Petition, this Court refrains from interfering with the same. However, respondent No.1 is directed to revisit the decision taken by him and ensure that allotment of public properties is made transparently without succumbing to the pressure being brought by unscrupulous elements of the society. This Court also finds the stand taken by respondent No.2 in the counter-affidavit that if the petitioner pays the arrears, they will allot shop No.34 to him as wholly unsavoury. Respondents do not appear to have become wiser atleast after the order in WP.No.10178 of 2011 was passed. In the absence of any specific method laid down for allotment of public properties, holding public auction is the best method. (See Ram and Shyam Co., vs. State of Haryana ( (1985) 3 SCC 267 ) and Meerut Development Authority vs. Association of Management Studies (2009) 6 SCC 171 )) Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed with the direction to the respondents to consider allotment of shops in the Market yards by holding public auction. (See Ram and Shyam Co., vs. State of Haryana ( (1985) 3 SCC 267 ) and Meerut Development Authority vs. Association of Management Studies (2009) 6 SCC 171 )) Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed with the direction to the respondents to consider allotment of shops in the Market yards by holding public auction. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 10-07-2012, is vacated and WPMP.No.26876 of 2012, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous.