JUDGMENT : Aravind Kumar, J. These intra-court appeals have been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by order dated 02.04.2018 passed in W.P. Nos.108099/2017 (LB-RES) and W.P. Nos.108991-109007/2017. 2. Writ petitioners came to be allotted shops by 4th respondent within the jurisdiction of Bhatkal town Municipal Council and lease deeds came to be executed during 2009 in their favour for a period of three years and on expiry of said lease period, proceedings were initiated under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974. At that point of time, the petitioners approached this Court by filing respective writ petitions since the Town Municipal Council, Bhatkal had invited applications from prospective applicants for allotment of shops which were in occupation of the writ petitioners by advertising the same in the news paper. 3. It was grievance of the petitioners before the writ court they have been paying enhanced rent amount after expiry of the lease period and thereby the lease had stood extended and by virtue of Section 72 of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1974, they are entitled to seek for extending of lease period. 4. Learned Single Judge by order under challenge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that as per the Government Order bearing No. NAE 509-GEL-2014, Bangalore, dated 19.01.2015 property vested with the Municipalities are to be auctioned and lease cannot be renewed. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of writ petitions, petitioners/appellants are before this Court. 5. Today, learned counsel appearing for appellants has filed affidavits of respective appellants and/or their authorized agents stating there under that in the event of shops being reauctioned or ordered to be reauctioned, appellants may be permitted to participate in the auction and in the event of they not being successful in the bid, they would quit and hand over vacant possession of the respective shops which is in their possession within one month from the date of confirmation of auction conducted by the respondents. Appellant Nos.1, 3 to 8 are present before the Court. They reiterate the contents of the affidavits. They are identified by learned counsel representing them. It is reported that 2nd appellant was unable to come due to illness. Hence, his presence is dispensed with. 6. Appellant Nos.1, 3 to 8 are present before the Court. They reiterate the contents of the affidavits. They are identified by learned counsel representing them. It is reported that 2nd appellant was unable to come due to illness. Hence, his presence is dispensed with. 6. Smt. Veena Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri Santosh B. Mane, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4/Municipality would submit that State/Municipality is willing to re-auction the property and they would abide by such terms and conditions as this Court may direct. 7. Placing their submission on record and taking into consideration the fact that petitioners are carrying on business in the shop premises from quite number of years, we are of the considered view that 4th respondent being instrumentality of the State is not only required to follow the Government Order dated 19.01.2015 and when the property is owned by the municipalities, they are required to be leased or given to applicants only by public auction and not by any other mode, such procedure has to be allowed to be followed by 4th respondent. The process of conducting public auction and determination of fair market price for shops located in the market area are to be auctioned and it has to be necessarily held in a transparent and fair manner, since it is the largesse of the State and conducting public auction there would be larger participation of the public and as such, said procedure cannot be found fault with as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. 8. Though, Mr.Rajashekar S. would vehemently contend that petitioners/appellants are entitled for their respective lease being further renewed, in the light of affidavit of respective appellants now filed as referred to hereinabove, we deem it necessary and proper to direct 4th respondent to re-auction the shops in question by notifying afresh and calling for applications from such of those persons interested and petitioners/appellants would also be at liberty to participate in the auction that would be conducted by 4th respondent as it would be right and appropriate method for disposing of the property of an instrumentality of State i.e., 4th respondent - municipality as provided under the Act and Government Order dated 19.01.2015. 9. 9. In the event of appellants being successful bidders, further steps can be taken by 4th respondent to permit them to continue in the said shops in which they are carrying on business hitherto. However, if for any reason appellants/petitioners are not successful in the auction, they shall quit and hand over vacant possession of the shop premises which are in occupation of appellants within three weeks from the date of auction without driving them to take recourse before any other Forum. However, it is made clear that for the remaining shops, if auction has already been conducted by 4th respondent, it would be at liberty to proceed to allot said shops to the successful bidders in accordance with law. 10. Learned counsel appearing for appellants submits that the rent/damages/licence fee which is due and payable as on date though offered to 4th respondent, same was not received. Cheques sought to be tendered before this Court. However, we are of considered view that appellants are permitted to hand over the said cheque to 4th respondent within one week from today and if same is offered, 4th respondent is directed to receive the same. Accordingly, writ appeals stand disposed of.