The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for predetermined criteria and published regulations to guide the fair and transparent allotment of public property, in order to avoid bias, favoritism, and nepotism.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. Three writ petitions filed in this Court, question the allotment of industrial plots in Industrial Estate, Bhiwani to the successful allottees, on the ground that the same are vitiated by nepotism, favouritism and total lack of a fair and transparent procedure that could ensure fairness and objectivity. It is alleged that the successful allottees are relatives/friends and protigi of politicians and bureaucrats. They had, therefore, succeeded in getting the allotment, not on the basis of merit but. because authorities allowed them to steal march over the better candidates available. This, according to the petitioners, amounts to distribution of largesse, as the recipient of plots were less meritorious and no comparative criteria to evaluate claim of all those, who applied for allotment of plots, has been followed. It is prayed that since the entire allotment stands vitiated, the allotment letters issued be cancelled and an inquiry be ordered.

2. Petitioners challenge to the mode of allotment, questioning the procedure followed by the authorities, makes it imperative for us to first notice the broad parameters laid by the Honble Supreme Court regarding distribution of public property to private individuals, so that on the touchstone of the same, we are able to evaluate the allotment of plots made, in the factual backdrop pleaded in these writ petitions.

3. The principle that the government while entering into contracts or distributing public largesse cannot act arbitrarily has been emphasized by the Supreme Court in a number of landmark decisions such as Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. Inter- national Airport Authority of India, (1979)3 SCC 489 and Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J& K, (1980)4 SCC 1. After discussing the entire conspectus of law, it was held by the Supreme Court in New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995)1 SCC 478 that -

"7. At the outset, we may indicate that in the matter of entering into a contract, the State does not stand on the same footing as a private person who is free to enter into a contract with any person he likes. The State, in exercise of its various functions, is governed by the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution which excludes arbitrariness in State action and requires the State to act fairly and reasonably. The action of the State in the matter of award of a contract has to satisfy this criterion. Moreover a contract would either involve expenditure from the State exchequer or augmentation of public revenue and consequently the discretion in the matter of selection of the person for award of the contract has to be exercised keeping in view the public interest involved in such selection. The decisions of this Court, therefore, insist that while dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largesse, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with the standards or norms which are not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. It is, however, recognised that certain measure of "free play in the joints" is necessary for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere."

4. It has been held in the case of Sachidananda Pandey v. State of W.B., (1987)2 SCC 295 that:

"On a consideration of the relevant cases cited at the bar the following propositions may be taken as well established : State-owned or public-owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain precepts and principles have to be observed. Public opinion is the paramount consideration. One of the methods of securing the public interest, when it is considered necessary to dispose of a property, is to sell the property by public auction or by inviting tenders. Though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule. There may be situat