JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J —Petitioner, by medium of the present petition, has mainly prayed for the following reliefs. "(i) That letter dated 26.10.2017 annexure P6, issued by respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside with directions to the respondents to again hand over the said shop of the petitioner, having been forcibly taken, that too in the midst of repairs being carried out by petitioner in sequel to the letter/agreement annexure P-2 and P-3 with further directions to the respondents to allow petitioner to run generic medicine shop as per terms as are contained in annexure P-2 and P-3. (ii) That respondents may be burdened with special costs as are provided under Section 35-A of CPC for unnecessarily harassing the petitioner and forcing the petitioner to approach this Hon''ble Court by allowing damages to the tune of Rs.10.00 lakh to the petitioner." 2. Impugned order dated 26.10.2017 (Annexure P-6) reads as under: "No. HFW-UNA (RH) /2017-2753 Dated 26.10.2017. To (Vivek Singal) , M/s Aggarwal & Associates, Una District Una HP Mobile No. 9418175602. Subject: Submission of FDR Rs.2, 52, 380/- as security money. Returning thereof. Memo: Refer to you application received in this office on 26/10/2017 vide which you have submitted a FDR of Rs.2, 52, 380/- as security money cannot be accepted since the allotment of space for generic medicine shop because of the that this matter is under the inquiry and investigation process is under consideration. Hence FDR received is being returned in original till the finalization of the matter Enclos: FDR NO. 710542 dated 20/10/2017 in original. Medicine Superintendent/SMOI/C Regional Hospital Una, District Una, HP" 3. Background leading to the filing of the present petition being that on the recommendation of the office of the Hon''ble Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh, petitioner was allotted space for setting up a dispensary of generic medicine at Regional Hospital, Una. The total area being 12x14 sq. feet, on a monthly rental of Rs. 1.00 lac for a duration of three years, with a security deposit of Rs. 2 lacs. 4. An agreement dated 29.9.2017, (Annexure P-3) , was also executed and amount of security deposited. However, the security amount was returned to the petitioner, in terms of the impugned order for the reason that the matter was under investigation. 5. 1.00 lac for a duration of three years, with a security deposit of Rs. 2 lacs. 4. An agreement dated 29.9.2017, (Annexure P-3) , was also executed and amount of security deposited. However, the security amount was returned to the petitioner, in terms of the impugned order for the reason that the matter was under investigation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that decision to allot the shop was taken for the reason that petitioner being an unemployed educated youth, was suffering from chronic disease and as such was unable to earn his livelihood. 6. Member Secretary, Rogi Kalyan Samiti Regional Hospital Una, District Una (respondent No. 4) has explained the circumstances which led the Government reconsider its decision and that being that the shop in question, had to be allotted on the basis of public participation and not private negotiations. 7. The allotment made on the recommendation of the office of the Hon''ble Chief Minister became subject matter of an inquiry, for petitioner was not an experienced pharmacist, registered with the Himachal Pradesh Pharmacy Council and thus, not holding a valid licence of pharmacy, issued by the competent authority. 8. It is a settled principle of law that public largesse cannot be distributed, save and except, in accordance with law. Mistake committed by the Government on the recommendation of the Office of the Hon''ble Chief Minister was sought to be corrected by the authorities. For after all, the shop was meant only for the purpose of selling generic medicines and, that too, by a licensed person. It is not that the petitioner was the only person having qualification or super specialty in the field. 9. State largesse cannot be distributed in a private manner. On the issue, law is well settled. [ Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India , (1979) 3 SCC 489 , E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamul Nadu , (1974) 4 SCC 3 , and Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal , (1975) 1 SCC 70 . 10. On the issue, law is well settled. [ Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India , (1979) 3 SCC 489 , E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamul Nadu , (1974) 4 SCC 3 , and Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal , (1975) 1 SCC 70 . 10. Further, in Natural Resources Allocation, in Re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 (2012) 10 SCC 1 , the Court reiterated that "it must, therefore, follow as a necessary corollary from the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 that though the State is entitled to refuse to enter into relationship with any one, yet if it does so, it cannot arbitrarily choose any person it likes for entering into such relationship and discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced, but it must act inconformity with some standard or principle which meets the test of reasonableness and non-discrimination and any departure from such standard or principle would be invalid unless it can be supported or justified on some rational and nondiscriminatory ground." 11. It is argued that the petitioner has made investment in the shop. Photographs of making alteration in the shop stand annexed. We do not find any major investment to have been made by the petitioner and in any event, such investment was made purely at his own risk for till such time the security amount was accepted, no indefeasible right could have accrued in his favour. 12. Noticeably, authorities rectified its mistake for immediately after signing of the agreement dated 29.9.2017, remedial corrective action was taken with the issuance of the impugned notice dated 26.10.2017. Hence, petition cannot be allowed. The shop in question has to be allotted only by way of public participation and not private negotiations amongst limited persons. 13. It is further pointed out that in case of one similarly situated person, i.e., Mr. K.K. Verma, who is running a shop under the name of M/s Verma Opticals Care Shop, no action stands taken, for the said shop stood allotted on similar lines. 14. As already observed, public property cannot be distributed privately by way of preferential allotment without any mechanism of public participation in place. We notice that the said allotment took place on 23.9.2011 and that too, on a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/-. 14. As already observed, public property cannot be distributed privately by way of preferential allotment without any mechanism of public participation in place. We notice that the said allotment took place on 23.9.2011 and that too, on a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/-. We may only observe that the said allottee is not a party before this Court and as such we do not intend to express any opinion with respect thereto. But however, it would be only prudent for the Principal Secretary (Health) , Government of Himachal Pradesh to examine the matter and take appropriate action against the said allottee, if the allegations made by the petitioner are found to be true. We clarify that such action has to be strictly in accordance with law. Affidavit of compliance be filed by the Principal Secretary (Health) , Government of Himachal Pradesh within a period of six weeks. 15. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.