THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8262 of 2011 Dated 29.03.2011 Between: J.Jayanna …Petitioner And The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B.Satish Kumar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, standing counsel for Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, who claims to be a ward member of Ieeja Gram Panchayat, Mahaboobnagar District, filed this writ petition for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in seeking to conduct open auction for running a market called ‘Thai Bazar’ as illegal. The petitioner in his affidavit had averred that there are two markets, by name, Ieeja Bazar and Sree Sree Thikka Veereswara Swamy Vegetable Market in Ieeja Village, that in the past common auction was being held for both these markets and that during the previous year, the highest bidder, who offered Rs.8,14,000/- for both these markets together, has paid only Rs.5,08,500/- and defaulted in payment of the balance amount. It is his further pleaded case that on 08.03.2011, respondent No.3 has passed a resolution for conducting auction for the said markets separately and that respondent No.1, vide his proceedings dated 21.03.2011, permitted respondent No.3 to implement the said resolution by holding separate auctions. The only ground on which this decision of respondent Nos.1 to 3 has been assailed in this writ petition is that if the markets are auctioned separately, they may not fetch proper revenue. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition. Except asserting that separate auctions may not fetch proper revenue, no material is filed by the petitioner in support thereof. Respondent No.3, being vested with the power to hold auctions, is the best judge to decide the method and manner in which the auctions are to be held. Unless its decision contravenes any provision of law or suffers from arbitrary or mala fide action, such a decision is not amenable for challenge in a Court of law. On the premise as above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.10271 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th March, 2011 GHN