JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the action of Jaipur Development Authority in not regularising the land inspite of Government directions, and allotting the same to other persons. 2. In this matter, it may be observed that the acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuing Notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 on 26th July 1969. It was published in the Gazette on 21.8.1969 and objections under Section 5-A of the Act were also invited and the report was sent by the Land Acquisition Officer on 2.8.1971. Declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act on 28.2.1973 which was published in the Gazette on 12.4.1973. The notice under section 9 of the Act was also published on 4.5.1973. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid acquisition, which was dismissed on 8.5.1975 and the Special Appeal No. 161/1975 was also dismissed on 12.1.1981. The SLP before the Apex Court was also dismissed on 29.8.1983. The acquisition is thus final and the 'property vest with the State Government. Possession of the disputed land was taken by the Jaipur Development Authority on 26.5.1984. 3. The society thereafter filed a suit in the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial, Magistrate Jaipur City, Jaipur. The defendant filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was allowed vide order dated 23.5.1984..The petitioner filed the appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed on 9.3.1990. The prayer for de-acquisition was negatived by the Civil Court. In respect of the plots allotted to its members, it appears that conversion -charges were also deposited. The lay out plan was approved in the meeting of BPC II of Jaipur Development Authority on 20.9.1986. The State Government has written to the Secretary of Jaipur Development Authority on 8.2.1990 to take necessary action m accordance with letter dated 18.1.1990. The letter of 18.1.1990 is for conversion and regularisation of the agricultural land. Allotment has been made to various institutions, associations etc. of the land which has been purchased by the society and -acquired by the respondents. 4. So far as the question of regularisation and conversion of the land is concerned, it may be observed that once the land is acquired and possession is taken, it vests with the respondents and unless the title is transferred, the action of regularisation and conversion cannot be directed. 4. So far as the question of regularisation and conversion of the land is concerned, it may be observed that once the land is acquired and possession is taken, it vests with the respondents and unless the title is transferred, the action of regularisation and conversion cannot be directed. The application for conversion was rejected on 4.1.1986 BPC has no doubt approved lay out plan but that action does not confer any legal right in favour of the petitioner. Rules of 1974 do not permit regularisation in the circumstances of the petitioner. From the letter of the State Government of JDA it appears that all factual and legal aspects have not been considered. In the matter of amount which has already been deposited as conversion charges by the petitioner and the like, if the land was not to be converted then it was proper for the respondents to have refunded the amount of conversion fee etc., deposited. Keeping the matter pending, brings the litigation and, therefore, it is directed that the respondents should refund forthwith the amount by crossed account payee cheque by registered post. Since, the title of the land vests with the respondents, I, therefore, do not consider it proper to give the direction for regularisation of the land, or to consider subsequent circular dated 18.2.94. 5. A question was raised that the allotment has been made to number of institutions at a very nominal price and an application was also moved, praying that the State Government and Jaipur Development Authority should be restrained from making illegal allotments to any cooperative society, or in the alternative a plot of 3000 sq.yd. be allotted to the advocated community at the same rate. So far as this contention is concerned, it appears number of matters are pending with the State Government. The file was also called for and from its perusal it appears that so far as the RAS Association is concerned, the genuineness or bona fide of the said Association cannot be doubted. It is argued that number of association, Samaj, etc. just on account of political motivation, gets favourable order from the State Government. Even with regard to the public and charitable purposes the benefits should not be restricted to a particular community and the Government should have the control to see that the public in general is also being benefited and the hostels, colleges and dharamshalas etc. just on account of political motivation, gets favourable order from the State Government. Even with regard to the public and charitable purposes the benefits should not be restricted to a particular community and the Government should have the control to see that the public in general is also being benefited and the hostels, colleges and dharamshalas etc. so constructed is open to all sections of public and is not restricted to a particular caste or community. Use of the buildings for a particular caste of community should not be encouraged and they should not be given concession 'public and charitable institution'. In a case where the land is to he given free of cost or at a nominal cost of Rs. 1 or Rs. 2 or Rs. 5, etc. the title should never be transferred and should always vest with the Jaipur Development Authority. The construction, if permitted, could be utilised for the purpose for which it is permitted and if it is not used for that purpose, the constructed property should vest with the respondents. 6. An application has been mcved by Mr. B.C. Chirani under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on behalf of H.L. Morani, M.C. Jaisawa, L.P. Bhargava, R.N. Bhargava. Another application was moved by Shri Saket Pareek. I.D. Singh, D.C. Patni and Doulal Mathur. The arguments of the parties have been heard on the application as well as on the merits. The applicant is allowed to intervene and heard on merits. The reply of the application was filed by the State Government. 7. Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 provides that no land shall be allotted for a price less than the sanctioned reserve price except for categories covered under Rule 17. Provided that land or schools and other public and charitable institutions may be allotted on payment of 50% of the sanctioned reserve price or with the prior permission of the State Government free of any charge or at concessional rates. It is contended that neither there is any guidelines nor rules in this regard and the allotment which is sought to be made to the. various persons like Bairwa Yuvak Shakti Sansthan etc. is an arbitrary exercise. It is contended that neither there is any guidelines nor rules in this regard and the allotment which is sought to be made to the. various persons like Bairwa Yuvak Shakti Sansthan etc. is an arbitrary exercise. On behalf of JDA a chart has been submitted according to which the land in question has been recommended by the JDA to be allotted at the reserve price not lesser of higher than that. The allotment made to Samachar Jagat Patra Dainik. Dainik Bhaskar Samachar Para and Rashtriya Sahara Samachar Patra is at double the reserve price of Rs. 2,800/- per square metre and they have given the possession and site plans have. also been sanctioned. Rajasthan Administrative Service Council have also made boundary wall at 50% of the reserve price of Rs. 1400/- per square, metre. So far as the RAS Council is concerned, no objection has been raised. The objection is only with regard to Akhil Bhartiya Raigar Mahasabha, Akhil Bhartiya Adigaud Mahasabha, Akhil Bhartiya Haryana Gaud Brahmin Mahasabha, Adhyakasha Shri Rajput Sabha, Bairwa Yuvak Yuva Shakti Sansthan and Khandal Vipra Samaj. The 'allotment to the jsociety of welfare of Mentally Handicapped persons is given free of charge and they have also been given the possession. The dispute therefore, with regard to the society for welfare of mentally handicapped persons, RAS Council, Samachar Jagat Patra Dainik, Dainik Bhaskar Samachar Patra and Rashtriya Sahara Samachar Patra who stand on different footing than the proposed allotment to Akhil Bhartiya Raigar Mahasabha, Akhil Bhartiya Adigaud Mahasabha, Akhil Bhartiya Haryana Gaud Brahmin Mahasabha, Adhyaksha Shri Rajput Sabha, Bairwa Yuvak Yuva Shakti Sansthan and Khandal Vipra Samaj. 8. Rule 17 of the Rules of 1974 provides allotment of residential plots at concessional rates, procedures, categories, priority, plot size price, recoveries etc. Rule 19 of Rules of 1974 provides allotment of land to institutions other than Charitable and Public Institutions. On behalf of the State Government as well as JDA it is submitted that the present recommendation of the JDA or the action of the State Government in allotting land to Akhil Bhartiya Rigar mahasabha etc. as mentioned above come under Rule 18 of the Rules of 1974 and in all these cases the JDA has recommended the allotment of land at the reserve price i.e. Rs. 1400/- per square metre. as mentioned above come under Rule 18 of the Rules of 1974 and in all these cases the JDA has recommended the allotment of land at the reserve price i.e. Rs. 1400/- per square metre. The decision of the State Government has been taken in the case of Bairwa Yuvak Shakti Sansthan where Rs. 1/- per square metre is sought to be taken. The possession has not been given and the maps have also riot been approved. In respect of others, neither there is any decision taken by the Government nor there is any question for approval of site plan. In order to examine as to whether the JDA has power to allot the land free of cost or at concessional rate or not the provisions of Pule 18 of the Rules of 1974 are relevant. Under Rule 18 the allotment of land for schools and other public charitable institutions is normally at 50% of the sanctioned reserve price. It is stated that the sanctioned reserve price is Rs. 1400/- per square meter. By amendment dated 14.11.1977 the words 'or with the prior permission of the State Government free of any charge or at concessional rates' has been added and thus the JDA can allot the land at concessional rate or free of any charge only with due prior permission of the State Government. Mr. N.L. Pareek has drawn the attention of the court towards the circular dated 17.5.1995 wherein the following guidelines have been given : "3. Rate of allotment of land to public Charitable, Professional and Educational Institutions : Land should be allotted at 50% of residential reserve price of the area as provided under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Disposal of Urban Land Rules, 1974). If it is considered desirable to allot at still a lower price, the matter should be referred to the State Government with full justification for sanction. The Government after considering various aspects of the matter as referred to by allotting authority or suo moto may allot land at the following concessional rates : S.No. Particulars of Institutions Rate at which land is proposed to be allotted 1. Educational Institutions 100% of the reserve price. Rate of allotment : (a) Those belonging to State Govt./Central Govt. and Public Sector Undertakings of the State or the Central Govt. Educational Institutions 100% of the reserve price. Rate of allotment : (a) Those belonging to State Govt./Central Govt. and Public Sector Undertakings of the State or the Central Govt. (b) Institutions where the membership exceeds 50% and Institution is working for last more than 10 years satisfactorily on the recommendations . of Education Deptt. Provided that Govt. may consider the allotment in suitable cases even where number of membership & condition of (n) minimum time period is not fulfilled: 25% of the reserve price. (ii)Norma for area to Educational institutions Divisional Hq other than Div. H.q. (i)Primary & Middle schools upto 3000 sy. upto 4000 sy. (ii) Secondary & Hr. Sec. schools including hostel upto 2 Acr.upto 3 acr. (iii) Colleges upto 8 acr. upto 8 acr. Attention of this court has also been drawn to the decision of New India Public School & Others v. HUDA & Ors., 1996(5) Supreme 765 , wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that there should be clear and unequivocal guidelines or rules. In the absence of .rules, salutory procedure would be by public auction. In this case the bona fides in the allotment were doubted. So far as present case is concerned, it may be observed that provisions of Rule 18 are explicit and the guidelines have also been issued which have been reproduced hereinabove. 9. Under the provisions of Rule 18 of the allotment should be made to Schools or public and Charitable Institutions. Various names as mentioned above have been recommended by the JDA as a public and charitable institutions. The word 'public and charitable institution' has to be read within juxtaposition of 'school' because rule 18 provides the allotment of land for Schools and other public and charitable institutions. The public and charitable institutions and schools should have the characteristics of involvement of public in general and should be charitable in nat Lire. Imparting of education to mentally handicapped persons and running of hospitals is a public charitable purpose and the institutions which run such activities should he called as Public Charitable Institutions. The rule or guidelines do not contemplate that the allotment should be made on the basis of the particular community, caste. Imparting of education to mentally handicapped persons and running of hospitals is a public charitable purpose and the institutions which run such activities should he called as Public Charitable Institutions. The rule or guidelines do not contemplate that the allotment should be made on the basis of the particular community, caste. In a democratic set up, like India the encouragement should he for the service of mankind and not for the benefit of a particular community which may ultimately led even themselves into disintegration and against the basic concept of the Constitution. The Constitution has envisaged social justice. Secularism, Democratic Character and to secure its citizens' social, economic and political justice. Equality of status and of opportunity and to promote among them all, fraternity assuring the dignity of .the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation. Instead of considering the allotment on the basis of a particular caste or community the said institutions must have a characteristics of a public and charitable institutions. The word 'public' implies the public in general and the word 'charitable' as referred to above includes philanthropic. Public-spiritedness, Eleemosynary, Benevolent and Beneficient to humankind from Human and unstinting activities. Circular dated 17.5.1995 refers only to the educational institutions i.e. Schools. Other public and charitable institutions have been, considered such : promoting of public health, safety, morals, general welfare, security or prosperity of the public or a section thereof. In this category, on the recommendations of the social welfare Department 10% of time reserve price has been specified for orphans for handicapped persons and 2564. of the reserve price has been specified for Dharanishalas. Religious and community centres. No document as been produced with regard to the allotment to Bairwa Yuvak Shakti Sansthan as to what is its object, how many members it has and since when and how it will be achieving its object is for which guidelines have been issued. 10. In respect of others, Akhil Bhartiya Raiger Mahasabha etc. as referred to above nothing has come on record. In the case of Common Cause A registered society v. Union of India & Ors., 1996(7) Supreme 109 it was observed by the Apex Court as under : "There is no justification whatsoever to pick up these persons except that they happen to have won the favour of the Minister on mala fide considerations. In the case of Common Cause A registered society v. Union of India & Ors., 1996(7) Supreme 109 it was observed by the Apex Court as under : "There is no justification whatsoever to pick up these persons except that they happen to have won the favour of the Minister on mala fide considerations. None of these cases fall within the categories placed before this court in Centre for public interest Litigation v. Union of India and anr. but even if we assume for argument sake that these cases fall in some of these or similar guidelines the exercise of discretion was wholly arbitrary. Such a discretionary power which is capable of being exercised arbitrarily is not permitted by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While Article 14 permits a reasonable classification having a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved, it does not permit the power to pick and choose arbitrarily out of several persons falling in the same category. A transparent and objective criteria/procedure has to be evolved so that the choice among the members belonging to the same class or category is based on reason, fair play and non-arbitrariness. It is essential to lay down as a matter of policy as to how preferences would be assigned between two persons falling in the same category. If there are two eminent sportsmen in distress and only one petrol pump is available, there should be clear transparent and objective criteria/procedure to indicate who out of the two is to be preferred. Lack of transparency in the system promotes nepotism and arbitrariness. It is absolutely essential that the entire system should be transparent right from the stage of calling for the applications upto the stage of calling for the applications upto the stage of passing the orders of allotment. The names of the allottees, the orders and the reasons for allotment should be available for public knowledge and scrutiny. Mr. Shanti Bhushan has suggested that the petrol pumps, agencies etc. may be allotted by public auction category-wise amongst the eligible and object selected applicants. We do not wish to impose any procedure on the Government. It is a matter of policy for the Government to lay down. Mr. Shanti Bhushan has suggested that the petrol pumps, agencies etc. may be allotted by public auction category-wise amongst the eligible and object selected applicants. We do not wish to impose any procedure on the Government. It is a matter of policy for the Government to lay down. We, however, direct that any procedure laid down by the Government must be transparent, just, fair and non-arbitrary." In the case of the Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain, 1996(8) Supreme 387 , it was observed by the Apex Court that:- "The Minister holds public office though he gets constitutional status and performs functions under constitution, laws or executive policy. The acts done and duties performed are public acts and duties as holder of the public officer. therefore, he owes certain accountability for the acts done or duties performed. In a democratic society governed by rule of law, power is conferred on the holder of the public office or the concerned authority by the Constitution by virtue of the appointment. The holder of the officer, therefore, gets opportunity to abuse or misuse of the office. The politician who holds public office must perform public duties with the sense of purpose and a sense of priorities. The purpose must be genuine in a free democratic society governed by the rule of law to further socio-economic democracy. The executive Government should frame its policies to maintain the social order, stability, progress and morality. All actions of the Government are performed the ough by individual persons in collective or joint of individual capacity. Therefore, they should morally be responsible or their sections. 12. When a Government in office misuses its powers figuratively, we refer to the individual Minister/Council of Ministers who are constituents of the Government. The Government acts through its bureaucrats, who shapes its social, economic and administrative policies to further the social stability and progress socially, economically and politically. Actions of the Government should be accounted for social morality. Therefore, the actions of the individuals would reflect on the actions of the Government. The actions are intended to further the goals set down in the Constitution, the laws or administrative policy. The action would, therefore, bear necessary integral connection between the purpose' and not personal gain. The action cannot be divorced from that of the individual actor. Therefore, the actions of the individuals would reflect on the actions of the Government. The actions are intended to further the goals set down in the Constitution, the laws or administrative policy. The action would, therefore, bear necessary integral connection between the purpose' and not personal gain. The action cannot be divorced from that of the individual actor. The end is something aimed at and only individuals can have and shape the aims to further the social, economic and political goals. The ministerial responsibility thereat comes into consideration. The Minister is responsible not only for his action but also for the job of the bureaucrats who work or have worked under him. He owes the responsibility to the electors for all his actions taken in the name of the Governor in relation to the Department of which he is the head. If the Minister, in fact, is responsible for all the detailed workings of his Department, then clearly ministerial responsibility must cover a wider spectrum than mere moral responsibility; for no minister can possibly get acquainted with all the detailed decisions involved in the working of his Department. The Ministerial responsibility, therefore, would be that the Minister must be prepared to answer questions in the House about the actions of his department and the resultant enforcement of the policies. He owes then moral responsibility, But~for actions performed without his concurrence also, he will be required to provide explanations and also bear responsibility for the actions of the bureaucrats who work under him. Therefore, he bears not only moral responsibility but also in relation to all the actions of the bureaucrats who work under him bearing actual responsibility in the working of the Department under his ministerial responsibility. 13. All purposes or actions for which moral responsibility can be attached are actions performed by individual persons composing the Department. All Government actions, therefore means actions performed by individual persons to further the objectives set down in the Constitution, the laws and the administrative policies to develop democratic traditions, Social and economic democracy set down in the preamble. Part III and Part IV of the Constitution. The intention behind the Government actions and purposes is to further the public welfare and the national interest. Public good is synonymous to protection of the interests of the citizens as a territorial unit or nation as a whole. Part III and Part IV of the Constitution. The intention behind the Government actions and purposes is to further the public welfare and the national interest. Public good is synonymous to protection of the interests of the citizens as a territorial unit or nation as a whole. It also aims to further the public policies. The limitations of the policies are kept along with the public interest to prevent the exploitation or misuse or abuse of the office or the executive actions for personal gain or for illegal gratification." 11. From the observations of the Apex Court made in various case referred to above including the case of Daulatmal Jain (supra), it is clear that the action of the Government should be transparent and should be with the aim of public benefit in general and in the public interest. The Government changes from time to time but the action must be such that public at large is benefited and for, that purpose the land may, be auctioned which is considered to be the proper mode for disposal of the land. The existence of such a public and charitable institution must be specified. 12. In the case of Chenchu Rami Reddy and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, (1986) 3 SCC 391 the disposal of public property without public auction was considered to be bad in law. 13. Public charitable institute or purpose has not been defined under the Act. In Income Tax Act charitable purpose has been defined which includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility. The provisions of the Income Tax Act are not fully applicable but the principles can be applied. There is a distinction between English Law and Indian Law on the concept of charity and the Apex Court in the case of CIT (Addl.) v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association, (1980) 121 ITR 1 observed as under : "Now it is interesting to compare, this definition of 'charitable purpose' with the concept of 'charity' under English Law. The English Law of charity has grown round the Statute of Elizabeth, the preamble to Which contained a list of purposes regarded as worthy of protection as being charitable. The English Law of charity has grown round the Statute of Elizabeth, the preamble to Which contained a list of purposes regarded as worthy of protection as being charitable. These purposes have from a early stage been regarded merely as examples and have through the centuries been considered as guide posts-for the courts the differing circumstances of, a developing and fast changing civilization, and economy. Whenever a question has arisen whether a particular purpose is charitable, the test has spirit and intendment of the preamble to the Elizabeth Statute. The law has been developed by analogy upon analogy and it is to be found in the large mass of case-law that has been built up by the courts over the years. The result is that the concept of charity in English Law is as vague and undefined as it is wide and elastic and every time there has to be a search for analogy from the preamble to the statute of Elizabeth or from decided cases. An early attempt to simplify this problem by a classification under main heads was made by Sir Samuel Romilly when he tried to subsume charitable purposes under four heads in the following summary submitted by him in the course of arguments in Morice v. Bishop of Durham, (1805) Ves. Jr. 522 relief of the indigent, the advancement of learning, the advancement of religion and the advancement of objects of general public utility." 14. Lord Machaghten in Special Commissioners v. Pemsel, (1891) 3 TC 53 (HL) interpreted the word charity to comprise in four principal divisions : 'trusts for the relief of poverty, trusts for the advancement of education, trust for the advancement of religion and trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community not falling under any of the preceding heads. In Indian law it is not necessary that the activity must fall within the preamble of the statute of Elizabeth and thus the concept of charity in India is wider than England or Britain. 15. On the basis of the decision given by the Apex Court in Chenchu Rami Reddy & anors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh , referred to above, it is stated that public officials and public minded citizens entrusted with the care of public property have to show exemplary vigilence. The term public charitable institution need not be explained much further. 15. On the basis of the decision given by the Apex Court in Chenchu Rami Reddy & anors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh , referred to above, it is stated that public officials and public minded citizens entrusted with the care of public property have to show exemplary vigilence. The term public charitable institution need not be explained much further. The word public enjoys general public must he benefited by the said institutions and charitable means which is being organised with a sprit of charity towards the general public. However, the institutions to which the land have been allotted are ex-facie ficticrous institutions/organizations only for grabing the public land. 16. The decision in the case of M/s. Dwarkadas Marfatia and sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, (1989) 3 SCC 293 has been relied to show that the action of the JDA should be in public interest and they are not expected to behave like private landlord but only for public benefit or public purpose. Their actions including contractual dealings are subject to judicial review. The statutory rules and the directions could be examined and even the action as to whether it is in public interest or is mala fide or arbitrary or for a collateral purpose should he examined under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, their action must be reasonable and in accordance with law in public interest. 17. In the case of Sri Niketan Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and others v. Vikas Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. and others, (1989) 3 SCC 368 the allotment in favour of the members of Parliament, and Ministers only on the ground that it was not made according to proper norms was struck down by the Apex Court. In the case of LIC of India and another v. Consumer Education & Research Centre and others, (1995) 5 SCC 482 even the administrative action of the public authority having public clement were directed to be in public interest. In the case of Dr. G.N. Khajuria and others v. Delhi Development Authority and others, (1995)5 SCC 762 the allotments were cancelled and the constructions were to he demolished and it was observed by the Apex Court 'however, some portion of the park was carved out for the nursery school. In the case of Dr. G.N. Khajuria and others v. Delhi Development Authority and others, (1995)5 SCC 762 the allotments were cancelled and the constructions were to he demolished and it was observed by the Apex Court 'however, some portion of the park was carved out for the nursery school. That such a park exists was sought to be proved by Shri Rao by producing certain photographs as well, one of which contains a signboard mentioning about 'DDA Park'. 18. In the case of New India Public School & Ors. v. Huda & Ors., 1996(5) Supreme 765 , the prevailing market rate of 1992 were directed to be determined with option to the trust to make the payment at market price. In the case of Common Cause v. Union of India & Ors., 1996(7) Supreme 109 it was observed as under : "The Government today-in a welfare State - provides large number of benefits to the citizens. It distributes wealth in the form of allotment of plots, houses, petrol pumps, gas agencies, mineral leases, contracts, quotas and. licences etc. Government distributes largesses in various forms. A Minister who is the executive head of the department concerned distributes these benefits and largesses. He is elected by the people and is elevated to a position where he holds a trust on behalf of the people. He has to deal with the peoples' property in a fair and just manner. He cannot commit breach of the trust reposed in him by the people. We have no hesitation in holding that Capt. Satish Sharma in his capacity as a Minister for Petroleum. and Natural Gas deliberately acted in a wholly arbitrary and unjust manner. We have no doubt in our mind that Capt. Satish Sharma knew that the allottees were relations of his personal staff, sons of Ministers, sons/relations of Chairmen and members of Oil Selection Boards and the members of the Oil Selection Boards themselves. The allotments made by him were wholly mala fide and as such cannot be sustained. 19. We have no doubt in our mind that Capt. Satish Sharma knew that the allottees were relations of his personal staff, sons of Ministers, sons/relations of Chairmen and members of Oil Selection Boards and the members of the Oil Selection Boards themselves. The allotments made by him were wholly mala fide and as such cannot be sustained. 19. From the perusal of Rule 18 of the Rules of 1974 and the Circular dated 17.5.1995 as well as the interpretation of the work 'Public and Charitable Institutions', I am of the view that only those public and charitable institutions should be, given the benefit under Rule 18 who have existence for number of years less than three not/and whose accounts are being audited having their own Constitution and have been registered as Public and Charitable Institution either with the Devsthan Department or with the Registrar of Societies. If a Charitable Institution is recently formed and applies for allotment of the land the matter should he scrutinised with more details so that at any point of time their existence is not disputed and the allegation of favouritism is not made. A particular community may advance the Charitable objects like : feeding the poor, imparting of education, giving medical relief, public health etc. and the benefit be given to the public in general. If the benefit is given to the general public then it will be called public and Charitable Institution. If the benefit is restricted of a particular caste or community then the broader object of providing land to public Charitable Institution at cheaper rate is not obtained. The institution may be of a particular caste or community-but the benefit cannot be restricted to a particular caste or community. In these circumstances, the State Government is directed:- 1. That guidelines given in the case of New India Public School v. HUDA, 1996(5) SCC 510 shall be kept in view to frame the guidelines for exemption/concession of price from the public and charitable institutions; 2. The allotment should be made by making it open to public in general. There may better claimants than those who may not be aware of such land proposed to be allotted to such public and charitable institutions. The allotment should be made by making it open to public in general. There may better claimants than those who may not be aware of such land proposed to be allotted to such public and charitable institutions. It is not the question of favouring or disfavouring to a,particular community and, therefore, whenever it is desired by the Government that a particular piece of land is proposed to be allotted to public and charitable institution there should be not only transparency but also the publicity of such an action so that there may not be any objection from any section of the public. It should be brought to the notice of the public and the decision he taken thereafter. 3: If the land is proposed to be given free of charge or on nominal charge there should be a condition that if the building constructed thereon is not used for public and charitable purpose for which it is allotted then the land along with the construction thereof will vest with the government. 4. The allotment or the possession shall not be given to any of the Mahasabha, Samaj or Sansthan referred to above which are based on community only. The claim should be re-examined in the light of observations made in the judgment. 5. It is provided under the present rules to allot the land for school at 50% of the reserved price. They are being run on commercial basis and, therefore, normally there should not be any further reduction of price in the cost of land; and 6. Where the allotment has been made and price has not been fixed, the possession should not be given unless the payment of the price is made. 20. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations.Writ Petitions Dismissed with Above Observations. *******