JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– This matter relates to the allocation of plots in the East Calcutta Area Development Project in the East Calcutta Township. The land is under the ultimate control of the Urban Land Development Department, Government of West Bengal and the immediate control of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA). 2. The petitioner is practising Advocate and also a part-time lecturer in the University College of Law. He had applied for allocation of the plot to the then Minister for Local Self Government of Urban Development who was also the Vice-chairman, CMDA for allocation of plot of land in Salt Lake residential area. According to the petitioner the Minister told him that there was no land at Salt Lake but the petitioner would be granted a plot in the East Calcutta Township, Phase-I. An endorsement was made to the following effect on the petitioner's application :–– "Dy. Director Pl. allot in East Calcutta." 3. The endorsement is dated 11th December, 1986. The petitioner's grievance is that despite such direction the petitioner was not allotted a plot of land in the East Calcutta Township, the petitioner made repeated representations without any effect. He was ultimately told that a list had been prepared for allotment of land in the township but that the petitioner's name was not included in such list. The petitioner filed this writ application challenging the framing of the list and for a direction on the authorities concerned to grant a plot of land to him as directed by the Minister on 11th December, 1986. 4. The respondents admitted the receipt of the petitioner's application with the endorsement of the Minister who was also the Vice-Chairman of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority. They have denied that any right accrued by the petitioner by reason of such endorsement. According to them the endorsement was merely a recommendation. It is said that the number of cases so recommended by the Vice-chairman was more than the number of plots available in each category under the special quota. There were 70 such applications cut of which the Minister selected 10 in the Higher Income Group (HIG) category in which the petitioner fell. Admittedly the petitioner's name was not in the list. 5. The records have also been produced by the respondent authorities. These included a register showing the applications for special cases. There were 70 such applications cut of which the Minister selected 10 in the Higher Income Group (HIG) category in which the petitioner fell. Admittedly the petitioner's name was not in the list. 5. The records have also been produced by the respondent authorities. These included a register showing the applications for special cases. Details of the applicants are maintained. There are 459 such special cases. 6. Guidelines for off-loading of plots were also produced. Two thousand plots were offered to the public. Provision had been made for reservation of the plots as follows :–– "(i) Persons affected ( i.e. ex-owners of the project land) due to acquisition of land in the project area for the purpose of the project. The matter for consideration of people falling in this group is that about 321 applications for plots presumably in lieu of land acquired for the project were received. Replies stating that they would get preference in the matter of allotment of plots on submission of application were issued by the erstwhile Dy. Secretary (Development); (ii) Persons physically handicapped; (iii) Defence Service/Ex-Defence Service Personnel; (iv) CMDA Employees; (v) Discretionary special quota of the Vice-chairman/CMDA." 7. The percentage of reservations for each of the groups according to the guideline is :–– "(i) 1% for CMDA employees; (ii) 1% for blind and otherwise physically handicapped persons; (iii) 1% for Defence Service/Ex-Defence Service Personnel; (iv) 2% for the persons affected i.e. ex-owners of project land due to implementation of the East Calcutta Project; (v) Discretionary special quota of Vice-chairman : 10% for EWS &LIG category; 20% for MIG & BIG category." 8. It is not necessary to consider the other qualifications for allotment. It is nobody's case that the petitioner was otherwise not eligible. 9. The petitioner is claiming an allotment in Group-V namely the discretionary and special quota of the Vice-chairman in the Middle Income Group (MIG) and Higher Income Group (HIG) category. 10. The respondent authorities were directed to produce any guidelines according to which the Vice-chairman, CMDA was required to exercise his discretion in the matter of allotment. In a letter dated 11th January, 1996 written by the Deputy Secretary (Works), Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority it was stated that the discretion to allot the lands was exercised by the then Vice-chairman, CMDA and that the objective criteria or the basis of selection followed by him was not known. In a letter dated 11th January, 1996 written by the Deputy Secretary (Works), Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority it was stated that the discretion to allot the lands was exercised by the then Vice-chairman, CMDA and that the objective criteria or the basis of selection followed by him was not known. A copy was forwarded to Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and has been kept on record. 11. The Vice-chairman therefore, has an unbridled freedom to allot any plot as the fancy might take him to such person without any form of accountability and at his personal whim. Such an arbitrary exercise of power by a Government Authority cannot be sustained at all. 12. "The lands under the control of the Government cannot be dealt with at the pleasure of the single individual or indeed as a Government of the whole. They are not in the position of a private giver." The discretion of the Government is not unlimited in that the Government cannot give or withhold largess in its arbitrary discretion or at its sweet will. It is incumbent to the Government therefore, to frame rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standards or norms according to which it has to exercise its power or discretion and without which the action of the Government is liable to be struck down. (1) Ramana v. International Airports Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 ; (2) Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2138 para 64. 13. In the absence of any objective criteria, the exercise of discretion by the Vice-chairman, CMDA in picking and choosing allottees cannot be sustained. 14. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities has stated that no effect has been taken on the list of 10 allottees as selected by the Vice-chairman, CMDA till date. There are therefore, no equities to be considered. The writ application is accordingly allowed by setting aside the list of allottees prepared on the alleged recommendations of the Ministers in respect of the special discretion quota for the East Calcutta Township, Phase-I. No further allotment will be made to any person without the framing of guidelines according to which the discretionary power of allotment can be exercised. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. The respondent authorities will reconsider the cases of the persons who have applied for allotments against this special quota including the petitioner in accordance with such guidelines for allotment of Special quota and will communicate their decision thereon to each of the parties concerned within a period of one year from date. All parties concerned to act on the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking.