well settled law that the best method of sale of public property is by way of a public auction whereby the bid of the person, who quotes the highest price, is accepted. Whatever may have been the resolution of the Nagar Panchayat, I see no reason to entertain the writ petition seeking implementation of such a resolution which runs contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard. With regards the petitioners’ contention that they not be dispossessed, basing on their possession over the said land for the past 40 years, it must be borne in mind that the petitioners themselves admit that the land in question belongs to the first respondent. It is also well settled that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and that it is not issued for the mere asking. It is only if larger public interest requires interference, would this Court be justified in issuing a writ in this regard. The petitioners have, admittedly, usurped the land belonging to the first respondent and have retained it in their possession. I see no reason to exercise discretion in their favour for it is always open to them to avail the remedy of a suit before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
