Advocates:
A.MARIAPUTHAM, ARUN MADAN, HARISH N.SLAVE, K.B.ROHTAGI, L.N.Sinha, P.P.Rao, R.N.Poddar, R.VENKATARAMANA, SOLI J.SORABJI

Key Points: - The case holds that disposal of public property must be by method that allows public participation and must not be arbitrary or secret; unfair or back-door deals are quashed. (!) (!) (!) - Government action in awarding contracts or leases for public resources must be fair, non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory, and guided by rational standards; failure to meet these principles can invalidate the action. (!) (!) - The decision emphasizes fair play in action and natural justice, including opportunities to counter allegations and the right to a fair bidding process, especially when highest bids are rejected or private offers are accepted. (!) (!) - Auctions are intended to maximize public revenue; the government may reject highest bids if inadequate, but must do so fairly and transparently. (!) (!) - In cases of secret or preferential offers, the government must provide equal opportunity to bid and verify allegations before accepting any non-public offer. (!) (!) (!) - The writs and judicial review are appropriate to challenge arbitrary or unequal treatment in the distribution of state largesse. (!) (!)

What is the obligation of the State to grant public contracts by fair and open process and not by arbitrary or secret negotiations?

What is the standard of review for government action in disposal of public property to ensure it serves public interest and prevents favoritism or unfairness?

What constitutes fair play in action and natural justice in the context of auction and tender for minor mineral concessions?