State shall allot public properties only by way of public auction
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.19527/2021 (GM-RES)
8. Both the petitioner and the 4th respondent were applicants for grant of 700 sq.mts. of land in Sy.No.262/1C1 at Fish Conservation Centre, Malpe, Udupi for establishment of Ice Unit/Cold storage. It is not in dispute that it is a public property. Applications of both the 4 th respondent and the petitioner were considered and turned down by communications dated 16.08.2021 and 21-09-2021 respectively. The reason that runs through both the rejection orders are as follows:
.....
The reason is that the property will have to be put to tender/ public auction and only then such allotment can be made. This is not challenged by the petitioner or the 4th respondent. What they would do is again knock the doors of political representatives. In fact prior to rejection of their applications, the petitioner and the 4th respondent had knocked the doors of political parties. The issue is bought back to life despite rejection.
This results in issuance of the impugned order dated 23.09.2021. One communication made by the political representative was to the effect that steps be taken by the administration to allot 700 sq.mts. of land in favour of the 4 th respondent on lease and another communication is to lease the said property for a period of 10 years; the Joint Director of Fisheries issues an emergent official memorandum for the purpose, as if, otherwise the heavens would fall. Immediately thereafter the impugned order comes about.
......
This results in issuance of the impugned order dated 23.09.2021. One communication made by the political representative was to the effect that steps be taken by the administration to allot 700 sq.mts. of land in favour of the 4 th respondent on lease and another communication is to lease the said property for a period of 10 years; the Joint Director of Fisheries issues an emergent official memorandum for the purpose, as if, otherwise the heavens would fall. Immediately thereafter the impugned order comes about. 10. It is an admitted fact, as observed hereinabove, that the land is a public property. Public property is sought to be distributed away, by interference of politicians in the administration. Public property, is trite to be leased out only by way of public auction/tender failing which it would become an arbitrary exercise of power. Public property cannot be bartered away at the whim and fancy of interested persons without even the public coming to know - 11 - WP No. 19527/2021 availability of such property. The irony in the case at hand is the competent authority has already rejected the applications of both the petitioner and the 4th respondent holding that allotment would be only by way of public auction. Notwithstanding this the impugned order comes about purely on political interference. 11. Political interference of any kind in public administration would put such administration in peril. A classic illustration of the said statement is the case at hand. The application that has come to be rejected is immediately processed and allotted to the 4th respondent only because the same has been recommended for such allotment as a special case. Where from special case would spring in, is unknown. It cannot have any backing in law. The case which is directed to be considered as special case is, on the face of it, arbitrary as it takes away the right of participation by others. Political interference is not stopped even during the pendency of the petition. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent has placed on record a - 12 - WP No. 19527/2021 memo to demonstrate that is has become a norm for the State to act upon political interference in granting public properties, as special cases, to the favoured lot. 12. It need no emphasis that the State is governed by ‘rule of law’ and not by ‘rule of men’. A few men at the helm of affairs or the powers that be, cannot be seen to act in a manner that would thwart the rule of law and generate a concept “you show me the person; I will tell you the law”. This Court would not permit the State Government to act in a partisan manner in favour of any applicant. 13. There are number of public properties which can be leased out to entrepreneurs. There should be uniformity in grant of such lands. Such uniformity will come about only when there is transparency in procedure; transparency in procedure can come about only when the properties are put to public auction and every citizen is permitted to participate in the auction. Therefore, the 1st respondent/State shall forthwith stop issuing allotment orders of public properties, as special cases, as a product of - 13 - WP No. 19527/2021 favouritism or political interference and allot them only by way of public auction. This case would form the last straw of admonishing the State for bartering away public property at its whim and fancy. Any such iteration would, without doubt, be viewed seriously, as such actions cannot bear any sanction under any law. Rule of law is insurmountable.