The award of contracts for the collection of public revenue, such as Tehbazari, must be made through a transparent and fair process, such as public auction or invitation of tender, to ensure the best possible revenue for the public exchequer and to prevent arbitrariness and favoritism.

( 1 ) THE petitioners case, in short, in the present Writ Application, is that the petitioner was granted a contract for the period 1-4-1994 to 31-3-1995 for the realisation of Tahbazari over Bus-Taxi Stand on Ballia Sikandarpur Road for Rs. 20,500. 00 on the basis of his participation in the auction held on 24th Feb. 1994 pursuant to advertisement published in the Newspaper. The petitioner had made an application to the District Magistrate/ Officer Incharge, Nagarpalika Parishad, District Ballia, for granting him contract for the period 1995-96 at an enhanced rate of 20% than the earlier year. Ignoring the said application, the District Magistrate granted a contract to one Rameswar Singh Yadav for the period 1995-96 at an enhanced rate of 20% from the earlier year, namely, for Rs. 24,600. 00. The petitioner is also ready and agreed to tender the said amount. He has also contended that the contract ought to have been awarded through auction or by inviting tender and not otherwise. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the grant of contract to the said Rameshwar Singh Yadav.

( 2 ) THE writ peition is contested by the Nagarpalika Parishad by filing a counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, it has not been asserted that any auction was held or that any notice was published. On the contrary, it was contended that two applications dated 2nd Feb. 1995 and 21st Feb. 1995 were received by the respondent from the petitioner. In the first application, he had offered to enhance at the rate of 1. 0% over the rate of 1994-95, whereas in the second, he had offered 20% after the auction was held on 16th Feb. 1995, whereas the said Rameshwar Singh Yadav had tendered 20% over the 1994-95 rate which was accepted.

( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY neither any auction was held nor any tender was invited. It appears that the contract was granted through private negotiation.

( 4 ) WHATEVER might be the position, such contracts are to be awarded through a public auction either by open bid or by inviting tenders. In this case, no such step has been taken. Granting of contract through private negotiation is not a healthy sign and might give rise to arbitrariness. In the present case, the petitioner has also contended that he had never offered 10%. He always offered 20% and the letter dated 6th Feb. 1995, copy whereof is annexed with the rejoinder-affidavit, shows that the same was received on 6th Feb. 1995. Where there was any receipt of the said letter or not, there are pure questions of facts which we feel, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, we should not advert to decide. The fact remains that besides the petitioner and respondent No. 4 no other person had applied for the contract. This pre-supposes that no other person was aware or had any notice or the grant of the said contract.

( 5 ) THE Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489 : (1979) 3 SCR 1014 : AIR 1979 SC 1628 had observed that:"it must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is 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 mustbe in conformity with standard or norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesse including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, licences etc. must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard of norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. "

( 6 ) QUOTING the ab