JUDGMENT : L. Narayana Swamy, J. The case of the petitioners is that in September, 2019, respondent No. 5 issued a tender notification (Annexure P1) for allotment of 14 shops/stalls at Bus Stand, Rohru for a period of 33 months. The petitioners, on fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the tender notification, participated in the tender/auction process. Petitioners being the highest bidders, their bid was accepted and they were directed to pay 11 months' license fee in advance, which has been paid by the petitioners, but, till date, the respondents have not handed over the possession of the shops to the petitioners in execution of the agreement. Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents No. 3 to 5 to hand over the possession of shops No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 to the petitioners as the same have been allotted to them pursuant to their participation as per the terms and conditions of the tender process dated 23rd September, 2019. 2. After issuance of notice, the respondents have entered appearance. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 4 and 5, though, admits floating of the tender notification by respondents No. 4 and 5 and also the submission of applications by the petitioners, but, on the basis of communication, dated 2nd November, 2019, made by General Manager, H.P. Bus Stand Management and Development Authority, Shimla to the Regional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Rohru, submits that with a scope to get more tender offers in open public auction, a decision has been taken by the respondent-Authorities to go for a fresh tender-cum-open auction with respect to all the shops in the first floor as the tender auction pursuant to Annexure P1 could not fetch suitable price for the shops in the first floor. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. It is true that respondents No. 4 and 5 have floated the tender notification (Annexure P1), in pursuance whereof the petitioners participated in the tender auction process and being the highest bidders, after acceptance of their tender applications, they have paid 11 months' advance license fee to respondents No. 4 and 5. 4. It is true that respondents No. 4 and 5 have floated the tender notification (Annexure P1), in pursuance whereof the petitioners participated in the tender auction process and being the highest bidders, after acceptance of their tender applications, they have paid 11 months' advance license fee to respondents No. 4 and 5. The same, though, has been acknowledged, but, that cannot exactly confer any right on the petitioners to seek execution of the agreement in their favour, that too, when, as is submitted by learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5, the said respondents had made efforts to return the license fee paid by the petitioners. 5. It would be profitable to extract the relevant portion of communication, dated 2nd November, 2019, made by General Manager, H.P. Bus Stand Management and Development Authority, Shimla to the Regional Manager, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Rohru, herein: “The matter has been examined by the competent authority and observed that sufficient bids have not been received in tender auction, there was a scope to get more rent offers in open public auction but the same could not be held due to scene created by the bidders as recommended by the committee. Hence, the recommendation of the committee for all the shops in first floor (Shop No. 2 to 8) is hereby rejected. You are, therefore, advised to go for fresh tender-cum-open auction as soon as possible under intimation to this office.” 6. As is discernible from the communication quoted hereinabove, the respondents have decided to go for a fresh tender-cum-open auction in respect of all the shops in the first floor on the ground that the shops in the first floor can fetch more rent amount and what has been offered by the petitioners is at lower side. The object of cancellation of tender notification in respect of the shops at first floor appears to be genuine since the open public auction can prove more beneficial to respondents No. 4 and 5. 7. We may usefully call 'public interest' will prevail over 'private interest' on the principle of legal maxim "Salus Populi est Suprema lex" which means to say "Public Welfare is the highest law". Personal benefit must give way to public interest and public interest cannot be blocked for private interest. 8. 7. We may usefully call 'public interest' will prevail over 'private interest' on the principle of legal maxim "Salus Populi est Suprema lex" which means to say "Public Welfare is the highest law". Personal benefit must give way to public interest and public interest cannot be blocked for private interest. 8. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed and out of the fourteen shops, the tender notification issued in respect of the shops at the first floor is cancelled with liberty to the respondents either to go for auction on the basis of Annexure P1 or to issue fresh notification for open public auction with respect to the said shops, wherein the petitioners may be allowed to participate. 9. Respondents No. 4 and 5 are directed to return/refund the amount paid by the petitioners towards the license fee for eleven months with a further direction to the petitioners to accept the same. 10. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.