"This Is The Last Straw": Karnataka HC Directs State To Allot Public Properties Only By Auction, Not As 'Special Cases' Upon Political Interference

"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 availability of such property...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."

The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner and respondent No.4 (Santhosh) had applied for grant of lease of subject land for establishment of Ice Unit/Cold storage of fish. Both their applications were rejected on the ground that the land had to be allotted only by way of public auction. However, subsequent to some political intervention, allotment was made in favour of 4th respondent.

The High Court noted that Lalaji R.Menden, Member of Legislative Assembly communicated to the Joint Director of Fisheries, Udupi to take steps to allot subject land to the respondent. Further, communication was made by K. Raghupathi Bhat, again a political representative, directing that the lease should be granted for 10 years. Both these communications result in the Joint Director of Fisheries issuing an emergent official memorandum in favour of the respondent.

In this backdrop the Court observed,

"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 availability of such property."

It added,

"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."

Further the bench expressed that political interference of any kind in public administration would put such administration in peril. It held,

"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 a special case is, on the face of it, arbitrary as it takes away the right of participation by others."

Noting that political interference is not stopped even during pendency of the petition the bench said,

"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."

Finally it said, "There are a 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."

Accordingly, it allowed the petition and clarified that the quashment of the order will not come in the way of the petitioner and the 4th respondent participating in the public auction. The State shall allot public properties only by way of public auction including the subject property.

Case Title: CHANDRA SUVARNA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.19527/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 492

Date of Order: 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

Appearance: PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE for petitioner; B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; S.K.ACHARYA A/W SRI KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATES FOR R4.

Click Here To Read/Download Order