Judgment : The prayer in the these writ petitions is to quash the order dated 3. 1993 of the 5th respondent, under which the 5th respondent has authorised the 6th respondent to collect the toll fees from Amaravathi Bridge at K.M.301/2 in N.H.7 in Karur Bye-pass Road for the period from 3. 1993 to 2. 1994 and to direct respondents 1 to 5 to dispose of the right to collect the toll in respect of Amaravathi Bridge at K.M.301/2 in N.H.7 Karur Bye-pass road by public auction or by calling for public tenders. 2. Before proceeding to consider the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondents, it is necessary to set out certain admitted facts which are available in the pleadings filed by both parties in both the writ petitions leading to the filing of the writ petitions. The Government of Tamil Nadu have constructed a bridge at K.M.301/2 on N.H.7 across the river Amaravathi near Karur town in the Karur Bye-pass Road, at a huge cost of Rs.130 lakhs. The same was completed and opened to traffic. The lease-hold right for collection of toll fees for using the aforesaid bridge was settled earlier by tender-cum-auction conducted on 1. 1991. The petitioner in W.P.No.8345 of 1993 (R.Ramalingam) was the highest bidder who has quoted a bid amount of Rs.27.5 lakhs. The leasehold right for collection of toll was granted to him and the lease was for a period of one year, which came to an end on 2. 1992. 3. For the subsequent year, tender-cum-auction for the entrustment of the above leasehold right was fixed on 211. 1991 and then postponed to 112. 1991. On 211. 1991, the petitioner in W.P.No.8345 of 1993 made a representation to the Government to extend the lease in his favour for one more year i.e., 1992-93 and he agreed to pay the increased bid amount of 10% over and above the bid amount of Rs.27.50 lakhs. The said representation was considered by the Government and the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.141, Public (HV.1) Department, dated 30.1.1992 and accepted the offer of leasing out the rights for toll fee collection for one more year for 2. 1992 on condition that the petitioner in W.P.No.8345 of 1993 should pay 10% more over the previous year’s bid amount of Rs.27.50 lakhs. 1992 on condition that the petitioner in W.P.No.8345 of 1993 should pay 10% more over the previous year’s bid amount of Rs.27.50 lakhs. It is significant to notice that this was done by the Government without calling for fresh tenders and by accepting the representation made on 211. 1991 by the petitioner in W.P.No.8345 of 1993. Accordingly he was entrusted with the lease-hold right for one more year from 2. 1992 and the lease period came to an end on 3. 1993. 4. W.P.Nos.1477 and 1756 of 1992 were filed questioning the validity of the Government’s decision entrusting the lease-hold right for toll fee collection for the year 1992-93 without tender. Those writ petitions were dismissed on 12. 1992. The 1st respondent invited sealed tenders by notification dated 110. 1992 published in the English daily the Hindu in respect of leasehold right for collection of toll fee for using Amaravathi Bridge for a period of one year from 2. 1993. According to the notification, the tender-cum-auction would be held on 12. 1992. Since 12. 1992 was announced as a holiday by the Government, the tender-cum-auction was postponed by a notification issued on 12. 1992. 5 Once again, the 1st respondent issued a fresh notification dated 112. 1992 calling for fresh sealed tenders and the date of tender was fixed as 21. 1993. It was notified that the 2nd respondent would be the only authority who will issue the tender schedule. Tender schedules were issued to 16 persons including the petitioner in W.P.No.8345 of 1993, by the 2nd respondent on 21. 1993. The Department received a complaint on 21. 1993 from one of the eligible tenderers that persons with vested interest are trying to obstruct the free and fair process of tender by planning to create confusion and problems. Therefore, the tender slated on 21. 1993 was cancelled. 6. Meanwhile, one M.Subramani filed W.P.No.20858 of 1992 and obtained an interim order restraining the Department from granting the lease for collection of toll fee for the above bridge to the petitioner in W.P.No.8345 of 1993 or to any other person without conducting any public auction. The interim order of injunction expired after two weeks from 212. 1992. 6. Meanwhile, one M.Subramani filed W.P.No.20858 of 1992 and obtained an interim order restraining the Department from granting the lease for collection of toll fee for the above bridge to the petitioner in W.P.No.8345 of 1993 or to any other person without conducting any public auction. The interim order of injunction expired after two weeks from 212. 1992. In order to thwart the attempts by a few individuals to form a syndicate with a view to bring the bid amount to a low value, the Government decided to entrust the job of toll fee collection to a Government agency so that the profits will accrue to the said agency. The 5th respondent, which is a State owned Corporation, offered a bid amount of Rs.60.50 lakhs and this amount was found reasonable and was higher than the earlier bid amounts. Hence, the Government accepted the same and handed over the lease-hold rights of toll fee collection to the 5th respondent for a period of one year commencing from 2. 1993. The bid amount offered by the5th respondent was much more than what was offered by the petitioner in W.P.No.8345 of 1993 during the years 1991-92 and 1992-93. 7. The 5th respondent called for quotations by its notice dated 12. 1993. The same was displayed in the site as well as in the office of respondents 4 and 5 on 12. 1993. In the first month, one M.Palaniswami quoted an amount of Rs.4.9 lakhs for the period from 2. 1993 to 3. 1993. Based on the above quotation, the 5th respondent called for quotations for the balance period of eleven months. In response to that, four quotations were received. The 6th respondent quoted the highest bid amount of Rs.62 lakhs for the balance period of eleven months. By this process, the 5th respondent, which is a Government undertaking, had made a profit of Rs.6.4 lakhs. By the impugned communication dated 3. 1993, the 5th respondent entrusted the job of collecting the toll fee to the 6th respondent for the new Amaravathi Bridge for the period from 3. 1993 to 2. 1994. In challenging the said communication, both the writ petitions have been filed. 8. By the impugned communication dated 3. 1993, the 5th respondent entrusted the job of collecting the toll fee to the 6th respondent for the new Amaravathi Bridge for the period from 3. 1993 to 2. 1994. In challenging the said communication, both the writ petitions have been filed. 8. Mr.E.Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.8345 of 1993 would submit that respondents 1 to 3 were obliged to call for tenders and stipulate terms and conditions and publish the same so as to get the best price possible. According to the learned counsel, respondents 1 to 3 never called for tenders before conferring the right to collect the toll fee on the 5th respondents or on the 4th respondent and that respondents 1 to 3 on earlier occasion notified a public auction and subsequently called for tenders without any reason and the right to collect toll has been conferred on the 5th respondent. It is further submitted by the learned counsel, that respondents 1 to 5 have conferred such right on the 6th respondent without holding a public auction or inviting tenders. According to the learned counsel, a public property cannot be disposed of at the sweet wish and will of either respondents 1 to 3 or respondents 4 and 5. There is no justification for respondents 1 to 5 to favour the 6th respondent especially when respondents 1 to 3 themselves twice notified and invited tenders, which was subsequently postponed. In short, it is the submission of Mr.E.Padmanabhan, that respondents 1 to 3 should have resorted to public auction before conferring on the 5th respondent the right to collect the toll and in turn respondents 4 and 5 should have resorted for public auction and invited tenders before conferring on the 6th respondent the right to collect the toll. 9. Referring to the impugned communication dated 3. 1993, Mr.E.Padmanabhan would submit that it is only a mere authorisation and it does not even refer to any tender or quotations received from the 6th respondent. The learned counsel would also urge that the action of the 5th respondent is ultra vires of its Memorandum of Articles of Association. 9. Referring to the impugned communication dated 3. 1993, Mr.E.Padmanabhan would submit that it is only a mere authorisation and it does not even refer to any tender or quotations received from the 6th respondent. The learned counsel would also urge that the action of the 5th respondent is ultra vires of its Memorandum of Articles of Association. It is further submitted that the action of respondents 1 to 3 in conferring the right on respondents 4 and 5 without proceeding with the tender is motivated and it has been resorted to confer the right on one S.Palaniswami and subsequently on the 6th respondent, and hence, the entire action is illegal and offends Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed on the following decisions reported in Haji T.M.Hassan Rowther v. Kerala Financial Corporartion, A.l.R. 1988S.C. 157: (1988)1 S.C.C. 166 : (1988)1 S.C.J. 251, Sterling Computers Limited v. Ml s.M.N.Publications Limited, (1993) 1 S.C.C. 445 , Food Corporation of India v. M/s.Kamadhenu Cattle Food Industries, A.l.R. 1993 S.C. 1601 and Sachidanand Pandey v. The State of West Bengal, A.l.R. 1987 S.C. 1109. l0. Mr.S.Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.11603 of 1993, would adopt the arguments of Mr.E.Padmanabhan. He would further submit that respondents 4 and 5 are bound to follow the P.W.D. Tender terms and conditions and the action of the said respondents is in violation of P.W.D. Code as also the Financial Code. Mr.S.Jagadeesan would further submit that it is the duty of respondents 1 and 5 to inform all the persons interested to submit their tenders or quotations. He would place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, A.l.R. 1985. S.C. 1147 and invited my attention to the observations found in paragraph 12 at page 1152. .11. Mr.R.Krishnamurthi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 and Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned counsel for the 6th respondent, would submit that public auction or inviting tenders is no doubt the normal rule but not an invariable one. Referring to the facts of the present case, it is submitted that the Government was justified in entrusting the right to collect the toll to the 5th respondent without inviting tenders and in the public interest, which is the paramount consideration, warranted the entrustment of the right to collect the toll to the 5th respondent, which is a Government agency. Referring to the facts of the present case, it is submitted that the Government was justified in entrusting the right to collect the toll to the 5th respondent without inviting tenders and in the public interest, which is the paramount consideration, warranted the entrustment of the right to collect the toll to the 5th respondent, which is a Government agency. It was also submitted that the 5th respondent called for quotations and based on the amount quoted for the first month, i.e., from 2. 1993 to 3. 1993,quotations were called for and in response to the same, four quotations were received and since the 6th respondent offered the highest bid amount of Rs.62 lakhs for a period of eleven months, the right was given to him to collect the toll. It is also submitted that the petitioners cannot plead for Palaniswami who has not chosen to approach this Court. .12. Before considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel, it is necessary to refer to the law relating to disposal of public property owned by the State or by any instrumentality of the State. The Government or public authorities should make all attempts to obtain the best available price while disposing of public properties and should not generally enter into private arrangements for this purpose. But, it is not the only rule that the State owned properties are required to be disposed of publicly. There may be circumstances or situations warranting departure from the ordinary rule. But whatever departure from the ordinary rule. But whatever departure is made from the ordinary rule, it must be justified by compelling reasons. The position of law is clearly laid down in the decisions reported in Haji T.M.Hassan Rowther v. Kerala Financial Corporartion, A.l.R. 1988 S.C. 157: (1988)1 S.C.C. 166 : (1988)1 S.C.J. 251 as under: ."The public property owned by the State or by any instrumentality of the State should be generally sold by public auction or by inviting tenders. Observance of the rule, not only fetches the highest price for the property but also ensures fairness in the activities of the State and public authorities. The State and the public authorities should undoubtedly act fairly. Their actions should be legitimate. Their dealings should be above board. Their transactions should be without aversion or affection. Nothing should be suggestive of discrimination. The State and the public authorities should undoubtedly act fairly. Their actions should be legitimate. Their dealings should be above board. Their transactions should be without aversion or affection. Nothing should be suggestive of discrimination. Nothing should be done by them which gives an impression of bias, favouritism or nepotism. Ordinarily these factors would be absent if the matter is brought to public auction or sale by tenders. But that is not the only rule. There may be situations necessitating departure from the rule, but then, such instances must be justified by compulsions and not by compromise. It must be justified by compelling reasons and not by just convenience." 13. In the case of SachidanandPandey v. The State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1109, the position of law has been summarised as follows: "On a consideration of the relevant cases cited at the bar the following propositions may be taken as well established. State owned or public owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain precepts and principles have to be observed. Public interest is the paramount consideration. Oneof the methods of securing the public interest, when it is considered to dispose of a property, is to sell the property by public auction or by inviting tenders. Though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons necessitating departure from the rule but then the reasons for the departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Nothing should be clone which gives an appearance of bias, jobbery or nepotism." 14. After laying down the above principle, Mr.Justice O.Chinnappa Reddy upheld the action of the State of West Bengal in not inviting tenders or in not holding public auction to negotiate with Taj group of Hotels for allotment of some land of zoological gardens on lease for construction of a Five Star Hotel. Therefore, it becomes necessary for me to examine in the present case whether the action of respondents 1 to 3 in entrusting the right to collect toll fee to the 5th respondent without public auction or tender was legal and justified. 15. Therefore, it becomes necessary for me to examine in the present case whether the action of respondents 1 to 3 in entrusting the right to collect toll fee to the 5th respondent without public auction or tender was legal and justified. 15. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the 5th respondent is a Government agency and it is wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu and that to thwart the attempts made by some individuals to form a syndicate to bring the bid amount to a low level during the tender, the right of toll fee collection was entrusted with the 5th respondent. It is also on record that the petitioner in W.P.No.8345 of 1993 was the highest bidder who quoted a bid amount of Rs.27.50 lakhs a period of one year ending with 10-2-1992. Even for the subsequent year 1992-93, the lease-hold right for toll fee collection was entrusted to him by adding 10% over the previous year’s bid amount of Rs.27.50 lakhs. It is evident from the admitted facts that the Government have lost substantial income. In fact, the 5th respondent offered a bid amount of Rs.60.50 lakhs for the year 1993-94 and that the same was considered reasonably higher than the bid amount offered during the earlier years. It is in the above background the Government entrusted to the 5th respondent the right to collect toll fee for one year commencing from 2. 1993. Hence, I am satisfied that in the present case, the Government was justified in departing from the normal rule of public auction or inviting tenders as the action of the Government subserves public interest. 16. Further, the 5th respondent is wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. In fact, the Government had issued a notification cancelling the tender slated on 21. 1993 for the year 1993-94. The petitioner in W.P.No.8345 of 1993 himself got the lease-hold right to collect the toll for the year 1992-93 and the said right was given to him by accepting the representation made by him on 211. 1991 without calling for fresh tenders. The amount offered by the 5th respondent is much more than what was offered by the petitioner in W.P.No.8345 of 1993 during the years 1991-92 and 1992-93. 1991 without calling for fresh tenders. The amount offered by the 5th respondent is much more than what was offered by the petitioner in W.P.No.8345 of 1993 during the years 1991-92 and 1992-93. The Government was justified in cancelling the tender because it felt that persons with vested interest collude among themselves with a view to deprive the State of its legitimate and reasonable income. 17. So far as the 5th respondent is concerned, it called for quotations on 12. 1993. One Palaniswami quoted an amount Rs.4.9 lakhs for the period from 2. 1993 to 3. 1993. The 5th respondent received four quotations and the highest amount was offered by the 6th respondent. The amount offered by the 6th respondent was Rs.62 lakhs for the balance period of eleven months. The 5th respondent accepted the highest offer made by the 6th respondent and the right to collect the loll was entrusted to him. Here again, I am satisfied that having regard to the time constraints, the 5th respondent was justified in inviting tenders for the period from 3. 1993 to 2. 1994. I find from the records that on 12. 1993, the 5th respondent called for sealed quotations and the said notifications was displayed in the site as well as in the office of respondents 4 and 5 on 12. 1993. Twenty-eight persons have approached the 4th respondent and have affixed their signatures at the back of the notice for having seen it. In response to the said notification, the following quotations have been received. .(i) A.Karuppannan for Rs.52 lakhs. .(ii) R.Chandrasekar for Rs.57.2 Lakhs. (iii) K.Sivasubramani for Rs.62 lakhs. (iv) V.Thanjavelu for Rs.48 lakhs. .18. Since the 6th respondent quoted the highest bid amount the work of toll fee collection was entrusted to him. The petitioners are not right in their submissions that the 5th respondent did not call for tenders. The 5th respondent only invited sealed quotations. No material has been placed before me to show that respondents 4and 5 should follow the procedure laid down in P.W.D. Code and Financial Code, as contended by Mr.S.Jagadeesan. Therefore, I am of the view, that the procedure adopted by the 5th respondent in calling for sealed quotations is legitimate and fair. No material has been placed before me to show that respondents 4 and 5 acted with bias and favoritism for accepting the quotation given by the 6th respondent. Therefore, I am of the view, that the procedure adopted by the 5th respondent in calling for sealed quotations is legitimate and fair. No material has been placed before me to show that respondents 4 and 5 acted with bias and favoritism for accepting the quotation given by the 6th respondent. By following the procedure of inviting sealed quotations, the 5th respondent has accepted the highest rate. Likewise, the Government have also obtained the highest price, in leasing out the right to collect toll fee to the 5lh respondent. The action of respondents 1 to 3 on the one hand and respondents 4 and 5 on the other, is fair and reasonable. I do not find any reason to interfere with the actions of the respondents. .19. Further, having regard to the period of eleven months in respect of which the leasehold right was given by the 5th respondent to the 6th respondent, I am of the view that the 5th respondent was justified in following the method of inviting sealed quotations instead of following the time consuming method of public auction. Respondents 1 to 5 have also placed before this Court the entire records. I have carefully perused the same. Both parties were also allowed to peruse the records in court. I have carefully gone through the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, counter-affidavits, reply affidavits, etc. I am of the view that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the impugned order does not refer to the quotation of the 6th respondent, the same is vitiated. Equally untenable is the contention that the 5th respondent has acted ultra vires of its Memorandum of Articles of Association. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, it is clearly stated that the Articles of Association of the 5th respondent provide for leasing of the rights as well as administer, manage and control all bridges and bye-pass and operation of collecting all fees. I have also perused the Articles of Association of the 5th respondent. In my view, taking on lease the right to collect toll fee and leasing out the said right is not outside the object of the 5th respondent. Hence, the 5th respondent has not acted in contravention of its Memorandum of Articles of Association. I have also perused the Articles of Association of the 5th respondent. In my view, taking on lease the right to collect toll fee and leasing out the said right is not outside the object of the 5th respondent. Hence, the 5th respondent has not acted in contravention of its Memorandum of Articles of Association. I have already found that the 5th respondent has given wide publicity while calling for sealed tenders. The notification issued by the 5th respondent was displayed in the site as well as in the office of respondents 4 and 5 on 12. 1993. I find that 28 persons have signed on the back of the notification for having seen it. I am, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that the 5th respondent has not informed the persons interested. There is no force in other contentions that the 5th respondent should follow the P.W.D. Code and the Financial Code and also the P.W.D. tender terms and conditions. No material has been placed before me to show that the 5th respondent is bound to follow them. No other contentions were raised by both parties. As stated above, I have perused the pleadings of the parties and the records produced by respondents 1 to 5 for coming to the above conclusion. 20. For the foregoing reasons, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.