T.S. RAVISH S/O. T.M. SRIKANTAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE BY ITS SECRETARY, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE PRESIDENT ISDMT DIST CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS claim a legal right to allotment of shops in the new commercial complex in the private bus stand in Tumkur constructed by the 3rd respondent - Tumkur Municipality (though described as Tumkur Mahanagara Palike). According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent -Deputy Commissioner acting as the President of the Integrated Development of Small and Medium Town, for short 'IDSMT', prevailed upon the petitioners to handover possession of the premises in a dilapidated condition for construction of the new complex with a promise to let out the shops on the making of a deposit of 25% as "goodwill amount" within the period from 2/5/2006 to 12/5/2006. Petitioners along with others claim to have deposited a total sum of Rs. 9,74,01,599/ - from out of which Rs. 55,00,000/ - is said to be allotted to the Public Works Department, Tumkur, to construct the private bus stand and commercial complex, which in fact when completed during the year 2008 was handed over to the 3rd respondent - Municipality during October 2010. The 2nd respondent - Committee is said to have held meetings on 8/12/2006 and 20/7/2007 and prepared a list of 54 and 10 allottees respectively in terms of the resolution passed on 27/4/2006 as also the list dt. 8/12/2006 disclosing the name of the petitioners as well as some other persons. The 3rd respondent is said to have communicated the same to the petitioners vide letters dt. 14/2/2007 - Annex. F1 to F9. On the allegation of failure to implement the resolution, these petitions are presented for a writ of mandamus. Petitions are not opposed by filing statement of objections.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, what is evident is the fact that the immovable property in question belongs to the 3rd respondent - Tumkur Municipality which holds it in trust for the public and answerable to the public. To a question of this court as to, whether the petitioners had a subsisting lease or license as on the date the premises was handed over to the Municipality for demolition and construction of a new complex, learned Counsel submits that there was no lease agreement. In the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact of a subsisting lease/rental agreements extending the period of permission to use and occupy the premises as on the date of handing over of possession of the building in a dilapidated condition for construction of a new complex, the petitioners cannot claim to have a legal right to re -possess the property after its construction.

(3.) THE Apex Court in Saroj Screens Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyam and Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 1649, having considered all its earlier decisions on the issue as to whether the State and or its agency/instrumentality can transfer the public property or interest in public property in favour of a private person by negotiation or in a like manner and answered in negative, culled out the following propositions: What needs to be emphasised is that the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities and/or officers of the State. Every action/instrumentalities to give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well -defined policy, which shall be made known to the public by publication in the Official Gazette and other recognised modes of publicity and such policy must be implemented/executed by adopting a non -discriminatory and non -arbitrary method irrespective of the class or category of persons proposed to be benefited by the policy. The distribution of largesse like allotment of land, grant of quota, permit licence, etc. by the State and its agencies/ instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favouritism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the State. We may add that there cannot be any policy, much less, a rational policy of allotting land on the basis of applications made by individuals, bodies, organisations or institutions dehors an invitation or advertisement by the State or its agency/ instrumentality. By entertaining applications made by individuals, organisations or institutions for allotment of land or for grant of any other type of largesse the State cannot exclude other eligible persons from lodging competing claim. Any allotment of land or grant of other form of largesse by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities by treating the exercise as a private venture is liable to be treated as arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism and/or nepotism violating the soul of the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.