In view of Rule 7(1), the action of the 3rd respondent in holding a public auction for grant of lease hold rights cannot be faulted. While the proviso to Rule 7(1) enables the competent authority to permit lease of agricultural lands, otherwise than by public auction, exercise of such a power can only be on fulfillment of two conditions. Firstly that a request is made by the Executive Authority in this regard and secondly that the competent authority is satisfied that the procedure as suggested by the Executive Authority is necessary and in the interests of the institution or endowment. The petitioner’s grievance is that he would suffer if lease is not extended. It is not even his case that it would be the interests of the institution if he were granted extension of the lease. It is not in dispute that the petitioner continued to remain in occupation of agricultural lands belonging to the 3rd respondent without a valid lease for the past two years. I see no reason to accede to his request that the respondents be directed to extend the lease, which expired two years ago in 2008, without recourse to a public auction. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if he choses, to participate in the public auction, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
