JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. - Has the Executive Agency, i.e., Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, third respondent in this appeal, while pouring benefit to the appellant-Vijay Kumar Tandon, by giving him lease of land so as to install petrol pump there, flouted the standards in the matter of grant of contracts, fixed by it, thus, doing sheer favour to him or is the said lease a clean transaction is the only question that needs adjudication in this Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clauses X of the Letters Patent by appellant against order of leaned Single Judge dated November 20, 1989, in Civil Writ Petition No. 11806 of 1988, vide which lease has since been cancelled in the writ petition that came to be filed by Bhupinder Singh. Before we take the aforesaid exercise in hand, the facts of the case would need a necessary mention. 2. On March 21, 1984, Muncipal Corporation, Amritsar, leased out a site for petrol pump situated at Circular Road, outside Beri Gate, Amritsar, to one Surjit Singh, who was the highest bidder. Inasmuch as Surjit Singh failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the lease granted to him in the matter of depositing the instalments, lease in his favour was cancelled. A public notice for leasing out the site for the said petrol pump came to be published on September 19, 1986 in The Tribune mentioning therein that the site measuring 120 x 100 feet for petrol pump outside Beri Gate, Amritsar, would be auctioned on December 29, 1986 at 3 PM in the office of the Executive Oficer, Municpal Corporation, Amritsar. The bidders were required to produce letter of intent from any one of the petroleum Corporations at the time of auction or latest by October 10, 1986. The details of the public notice, published in The Tribune, were mentioned in Annexure P-1. The original allottee, Surjit Singh, being aggrieved of cancellation of lease to him and publication of notice aforesaid for reauctioning the site, filed civil suit for Injunction, during the currency whereof he maintained an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of ad- interim stay directing the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, not to auction the site for petrol pump to anyone else. It is not clear from records as to what exact orders were passed by the learned Subordinate Judge but, in an appeal, preferred by Surjit Singh, learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide order dated February 6, 1987, directed that the property in dispute shall not be leased out through secret deal to anybody and the smae may be leased through public auction. It is significant to mention here that before issuing directions to the effect aforesaid, it was observed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, that "as per rules also, the respondent has to lease out the property through public auction and that leasing out the property through public auction is for the benefit of the Municipal Corporation since the public auction is likely to fetch more auction amount". One Harvinder Singh, it appears, primarily on the ground that Municipal Corporation, in violation of law, was going to allot the site for petrol pump by way of lease, without any public auction and, therefore, by secret negotiations, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5217 of 1986. In the said writ petition, a letter of the Government dated December 3, 1986, Annexure P-3 was produced wherein it was mentioned that the matter regarding leasing out of the site for petrol pump outside Beri Gate, Amritsar, was considered by the Government and it was felt that terms of auction need to be suitably revised if the site had to be auctioned. Accordingly, Committee, consisting of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, Director, Local Government, Punjab, Chief Town Planner, Punjab was constituted to decide the issue and also to settle the terms and conditions for the auction of the site. Once the letter aforesaid was produced in Court, wherein it was decided by the Government to settle the terms and conditions for the auction of the site, thereby excluding any other mode of lease, writ petition obviously became infructuous and was accordingly dismissed on February 9, 1987. 3. Once the letter aforesaid was produced in Court, wherein it was decided by the Government to settle the terms and conditions for the auction of the site, thereby excluding any other mode of lease, writ petition obviously became infructuous and was accordingly dismissed on February 9, 1987. 3. When despite Section 172 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1976, dealing with disposal of property, and clause (c) thereof which enjoins that the consideration for which any immovable property may be sold, leased or otherwise transferred can not be less than the value at which such immovable property could be sold, leased or otherwise transferred in normal and fair competition, as also in teeth of orders passed by the Civil Court and this Court on the basis of decision taken by the Government, it was transferred to the appellant, present writ petition came to be filed by Bhupinder Singh clearly alleging therein that the lease in favour of the appellant was abnormal and unfair as the same was kept secret which came to light only when the appellant started raising construction on the site in question. The action of the Municipal Corporation in leasing out the site, it was alleged, smacks of mala-fide intention to favour an influential person in the locality. 4. Insofar as Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, is concerned, it defended its action by pleading that the site could not be earlier auctioned as the High Court in CWP No. 5217 of 1986 had granted stay which was later on dismissed as infructuous. Since the two conditions that the applicant for allotment should deposit Rs. 10,000/- and should have letter of intent from petrolem Corporation were fulfilled only by the appellant and the expiry date of Letter of Intent in favour of the appellant was March 31, 1988 and further in view of the clearance of the Government after proper scrutiny of the matter, the site was allotted to him. It was denied that it was a secret deal as the only qualifying person was the appellant. 5. Insofar as appellant is concerned, he pleaded by way of preliminary objections that one after another petition is being filed in this court through different persons on the same matter. Earlier, CWP No. 5217 of 1986 was filed by one Narpinder Singh which was dismissed as infructuous. 5. Insofar as appellant is concerned, he pleaded by way of preliminary objections that one after another petition is being filed in this court through different persons on the same matter. Earlier, CWP No. 5217 of 1986 was filed by one Narpinder Singh which was dismissed as infructuous. It was followed by CWP No. 10311 of 1988 by Surjit Singh and Suresh Kumar which too was dismissed. Besides, civil suit filed in this regard was pending in the Civil Courts at Amritsar and, therefore, present writ petition was not maintainable as the alternative remedy had since already been availed. It was further pleaded that insofar as site allotted to Surjit Singh is concerned, same was still lying vacant and litigation in regard thereto was in progress between Surjit Singh and the Municipal Corporation. The land which has been leased out to the appellant was different than the one which was subject matter of dispute between Surjit Singh and the Municipal Corporation. It has further been pleaded by him that the Municipal Corporation had not entered into any secret deal with him. Insofar as Section 172 of the Punjab Municipal Act is concerned, it has been the case of third respondent that even the Commissioner is empowered to sell or lease out the land in terms of the provisions mentioned in the said Section and accordingly the manner of leasing out the land could not be questioned in any manner and that too by invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Insofar as basic assertions pertaining to litigation between Surjit Singh and Corporation and the one leading to order dated February 9, 1987 passed by this court in CWP No. 5217 of 1986 are concerned, same have not been denied by either of the respondents. 6. On the strength of the provisions contained in sub-section (c) of Section 172 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1976, as also in view of the orders passed by the Civil Court and this Court in CWP No. 5217 of 1986, learned Single Judge held that : "In the circumstances, the Corporation was bound to transfer this site only by public auction and it could not proceed to give it to Vijay Kumar Tandon merely by allotment. The stand of the Corporation that V.K. Tandon was the only person who had a letter of intent and that as the expiry date thereof was March 31, 1988, the site was allotted to him in view of the clearance of the Government, after proper scrutiny of the matter, provides no justification for the lease being granted to V.K. Tandon in this manner. Equally weighty is the other contention raised namely with regard to there being no material on record to show that the terms and conditions on which the site had been allotted to V.K. Tandon satisfied the test of the lease value of the site being in consonance with what it could have been in normal and fair competition. 7. Before we may proceed any further in the matter, we would like to make a mention of some misc. applications that have come to be filed either along with memorandum of appeal or during the course of arguments. 8. CM No. 923 of 1990 was filed along with the appeal under order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to place on record some documents by way of additional evidence. Copies of letter of intent dated July 29, 1986, resolution dated September 3, 1986, letter from the Corporation to the appellant dated September 9, 1986, another letter from the Corporation dated March 30, 1988, letter dated October 11, 1988 from the District Magistrate to Bharat Petroleum Corportion, certificate from Land Superintendent, yet another letter from the District Magistrate to the Explosive Department, dealership licence dated March 31, 1989 and agreement for lease dated April 7, 1988 are the documents which the appellant, vide the application aforesaid, wants to place on record. There is no need to give details of the documents at this stage as during the course of hearing of this appeal, we had sent for the entire record pertaining to lease that was initially granted to Surjit Singh by way of public auction as also the one pertaining to the appellant, culminating into lease by way of allotment. Pursuant to directions issued by this court, record has been made available and we have perused the same. Pursuant to directions issued by this court, record has been made available and we have perused the same. Inasmuch as Bhupinder Singh, even though served at motion stage, did not appear nor any representation was made on his behalf when the appeal was taken for final hearing, vide order dated April 27, 2000 it was directed that he should be served through Shri Jatin Salwan, Advocate, who represented him before the learned Single Judge as also through publication in the newspaper, The Tribune, for a date to be fixed by the office. This order came to be passed pursuant to prayer made by the appellant vide his application No. 586 of 2000 for serving Bhupinder Singh by substituted service. All that requires to be mentioned with regard to Civil Misc. abovesaid is that the correct address of Bhupinder Singh could not be known. It was averred in the application aforesaid that the address given by him when he filed the petition, i.e., 2156/8, Chowk Shakti Nagar, Inside Beri Gate, Amritsar, was not correct and that the appellant has not been able to find out any further details about his address despite best efforts made by him. Bhupinder Singh, despite orders dated April 27, 2000 did not choose to appear. We do not want to go into the question as to why Bhupinder Singh could not be served in this case inasmuch as his absence alone would not be enough as the apppellant shall, in any case, have to show that the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge needs to be set aside. In other words, once there is a judgment against the appellant, he can succeed only by showing illegality or impropriety therein and in that context, appearance or otherwise of Bhupinder Singh is wholly immaterial. 9. Civil Misc. No. 3138 of 2000 under Order 41 Rule 33 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on behalf of third respondent seeking permission to place on record site plans, Annexures R-1, R-2 and R-3 showing the site measuring 100 x 83 feet which was allotted to Surjit Singh on March 31, 1984 and the site measuring 100 x 120 feet alloted to M/s V.K. Tandon, with a view to show that the two sites, i.e., the one leased out to Surjit Singh by way of open auction and the other allotted to appellant are different. In the context of Section 172 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1976, it has also been averred in the application aforesaid that lease money that was fixed in the case of appellant was Rs. 3320/- per month which was not less than which could be expected in fair competition. The Corporation had earlier held a public auction respecting the adjoining plot measuring 110x83 feet and that too for a petrol pump and the maximum rent offered was Rs. 2525/- per month. On that footing, rent of Rs. 3320/- per month for a plot measuring 120x100 feet could not be said to be below the market value. Prayer in this application is that order passed by learned Single Judge dated November 20, 1989 may be set aside by taking the practical view of the matter that the petrol pump set up by the appellant has been working since March 31, 1989 and further that the appellant be directed to deposit the lease money since April 1, 1988 with interest @ 18% per annum. Yet another application vide CM No. 3397 of 2000 came to be filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the prayer clause made in earlier CM No. 3138 of 2000. Instead of setting aside of order of learned Single Judge dated November 20, 1988, it is now prayed by way of amendment that the observations made by learned Single Judge in order dated November 20, 1989 against the Municipal Corporation may be set aside. CM Nos. 3398 of 2000 and 1107 of 2001 have been filed to place on record additional documents, Annexures R4 to R20. We need not give any details with regard to the documents aforesaid as the entire record of the case has been sent for and is available before us, as mentioned above, and the documents, referred to above, are part of the said record. 10. It requires to be mentioned that initially no one had appeared on behalf of the third respondent and vide order dated September 6, 2000 we had issued notice to the learned counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of the said respondent as also to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar to appear and personally ensure production of the relevant records. It is only after the orders aforesaid were passed that Shri T.S. Gujral, Advocate appeared for the said respondent. Mr. It is only after the orders aforesaid were passed that Shri T.S. Gujral, Advocate appeared for the said respondent. Mr. Gujral was not sure as to whether the papers placed in his hands were complete and for that reason, vide order dated September 25, 2000, we had directed senior-most officer of the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, to be present in person and ensure production of the entire record of the case in the Court on the next date of hearing. Complete record was still not available and, therefore, vide orders dated November 20, 2000, Joint Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, was directed to appear in person in court and produce the entire record regarding payment of lease money at the time of hearing on the next date. Inasmuch as prayer in all the applications, by and large, is to place on record some documents, and, as mentioned above, the entire record is now available with us, there is no need to pass any separate orders on the said applications. Suffice it, however to say that ever since April, 1988 the appellant had not paid the lease money and it is only during the course of hearing of this appeal and, in particular, the application made by the Municipal Corporation praying that the appellant should be directed to pay the lease money, that same has been paid, even though not with interest, as was demanded by the Municipal Corporation. 11. Having given the facts in detail, time it now ripe to determine the controversy as summed up by us in the very beginning of the judgment. The fact that Surjit Singh was initially granted lease of the site to establish a petrol pump at Circular Road, outside Beri Gate, Amritsar, and the said lease, for one reason or the other, with which we are not concerned, had to be cancelled, thus, constraining Surjit Singh to file a civil suit with the kind of injunction that was granted by the learned Additional District Judge, is not in dispute. So is the position with regard to Civil Writ Petition No. 5217 of 1986 that was rendered infructuous in view of letter dated December 3, 1986 placed on record by the respondents. 12. Mr. So is the position with regard to Civil Writ Petition No. 5217 of 1986 that was rendered infructuous in view of letter dated December 3, 1986 placed on record by the respondents. 12. Mr. Sibal, learned counsel representing the appellant, however, vehemently contends that the controversy with regard to lease of land to Surjit Singh at the site earmarked for that and the resultant effect of same, was wholly immaterial. The orders passed by this Court in CWP No. 5217 of 1986 and the civil Court in the civil suit filed by Surjit Singh could not at all be taken into consideration while dealing with the controversy in hand as the site that came to be ultimately allotted to the appellant by permissible negotiations was entirely different and further that in the mater of disposal of land, the Court could examine only the fairness of the decision-making process and could not interfere with the ultimate policy decision merely because, in its opinion, another decision would have been better. Moreover, notwithstanding the States liability to show its actions to be fair, reasonable and in accordance with law, the initial burden of showing prima facie evidence of unconstitutionality or illegality of the impugned action is always on the petitioner and, insofar as site allotted to appellant is concerned, nothing at all was even pleaded that may spell even remotely unreasonableness on the part of the Municipal Corporation, further contends the learned counsel. 13. We have given our anxious thoughts to the two fold contention of the leaned counsel, as noted above, but, in the facts and circumstances of the case we find no merit whatsoever in the same. We have perused site plans, Annexures R-1, R-2 and R-3. In the site plan, Annexure R-3, the border of site that was previously auctioned to Surjit Singh has been shown with red lines whereas the border of the one now allotted to appellant has been shown in green lines. Whereas, the plot allotted to Surjit Singh by way of auction had dimension of 83x110 feet, the one allotted to appellant is 120 x 100 feet. Both these plots are adjoining each other and a part of an open plot and park stated to be Nazool land. Whereas, plot previously allotted to Surjit Singh forms part of an open plot, the one now allotted to appellant forms part of a park. Both these plots are adjoining each other and a part of an open plot and park stated to be Nazool land. Whereas, plot previously allotted to Surjit Singh forms part of an open plot, the one now allotted to appellant forms part of a park. Both these plots are naturally situated at Circular Road, outside Beri Gate, Amritsar and it is not the case of either the appellant or the Municipal Corporation that by virtue of any scheme or orders, two sites were earmarked so as to establish two petrol pumps adjoining each other in the same vicinity. Annexure R-2 only depicts plot measuring 83x110 feet given on lease to Surjit Singh by way of open auction. The said plan, in our view, does not tally with both the plots, i.e., one given to Surjit Singh and the other given to appellant, as have been shown in Annexure R-3. Whereas, site allotted to appellant has been shown to be part of a park in Annexure R-3, same, as per site plan, Annexure R-2, would be part of an open land. In other words, a smaller portion has been shown as open land in Annexure R-3. In Annexure R- 2, wherein two adjoining plots, referred to above, have been shown, open area is far less than the one shown in Annexure R-3. Be that as it may, the fact remains that both adjoining plots are situated in the same area for which, as mentioned above, nothing at all has been brought on record that may show that two sites for establishing petrol pumps were to be allotted. Further, we may only observe that if the site plan Annexure R-3 be correct, then carving out a plot from a park would be far worse as that would add many folds to the intentions of the Municipal Corporation in favouring the appellant by converting even a park into open site for setting up a petrol pump. There is an apparent discrepancy in Annexures R-2 and R-3 and it can not be said with certainty, particularly when we are convinced that ever since beginning till date, Municipal Corporation is favouring the appellant for one reason or the other, that the position shown now would really result into a finding, as is sought to be made out, that these two sites were entirely different. However, assuming it to be so, the action of the respondent Corporation in allotting an adjoining plot to the appellant by doing away with the required competition, as envisaged under clause (c) of Section 172, would be a clear attempt to over-reach the court orders. It would in fact be a subterfuge, inviting further criticism to the conduct of the Municipal Corporation as in that case it would be a clear attempt to wriggle out of the court orders and assurances given by it to the court with an out and out intention to favour an individual. 14. From the records of the file, pertaining to M/s Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar as also M/s V.K. Tandon and Company, it transpires that vide noting dated August 16, 1986 at page 71 in the file of M/s Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar, background of the case, culminating into as to how the matter came to be considered for grant of lease to the appellant, has been mentioned. The said noting has been produced on record as Annexure R-8. After making a mention of lease having been given to M/s Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar @ Rs. 2525/- per month and the aftermath thereof, i.e., cancellation of lease and filing of civil suit by Surjit Singh and stay granted by the Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar, it has been mentioned that since by virtue of orders passed by the Senior Sub Judge, lease can not be confirmed, no person participated in the bid. Consequently, the site remained vacant and in the meantime, Vijay Kumar Tandon approached for the allotment of the site for petrol pump, adjacent to this site. The previous auction could not be held due to stay order obtained by M/s Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar and the Corporation decided to allot the adjacent land on pro-rata lease money to Shri Vijay Kumar Tandon vide resolution No. 930 dated September 3, 1986 @ Rs. 3320/- per month for land measuring 120x100 feet in order to avoid recurring loss to it. It has further been mentioned that Mr. Tandon has deposited three months rent as security and six months rent as advance, totalling Rs. 29,880/- but the agreement has not been executed with him so far. The stay order granted by Shri Tara Singh, Senior Sub Judge, was vacated on September 3,1986. It has further been mentioned that Mr. Tandon has deposited three months rent as security and six months rent as advance, totalling Rs. 29,880/- but the agreement has not been executed with him so far. The stay order granted by Shri Tara Singh, Senior Sub Judge, was vacated on September 3,1986. M/s Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar then filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, who vide order dated September 12, 1986 directed that the Corporation shall not lease out the property through some secret deal and further that the order would not debar the Corporation from leasing out the disputed property by public auction. It is interesting to note that even though it has been mentioned in the said noting that there is no bar to lease out the land by auction, but the proposal was that it be leased by open auction on the conditions which are as follows :- "1. The intended bidder will produce a letter of intent from any of the Petroleum Corporation at the time of auction or latest by 10th October, 1986. In case he fails to produce the latter of intent by the authorised petroleum Corporation by 10th October, 1986, the amount deposited by him shall stand forfeited without any further correspondence and the site will be allotted to the next bidder who produces the letter of intent in this regard. 2. Earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- shall be deposited by each bidder before participating in the auction and one years lease money will be recovered at the fall of hammer and if the highest bidder fails to deposit the same, the earnest money shall stand forfeited and the Corporation shall be justified and be within its right to allot the site to the other bidder". It is further said in Annexure R-8 that if the proposal is approved, auction may be allowed to be conducted on September 29, 1986 at 3 PM. 15. Annexure R-9 is a letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar dated November 17, 1986 wherein it has been mentioned that vide agreement executed between erstwhile Municipal Committe, Amritsar and the Government of Punjab, on May 14, 1943 regarding management of Nazul land, same can be utilised for public purposes, such as, gardens, schools, filling stations, fire stations etc. and that it has been proposed that a piece of land measuring 100 x 120 feet as shown in the enclosed plan, situated outside Beri Gate, may be leased out for petrol pump and that no objection certificate for leasing out the aforesaid land be issued. 16. The appellant, however, asserts that lease in his favour is a clean transaction as would be evident from various documents produced on record, authenticity of which is not in dispute as they form part of the records, sent for by this court. The documents, on which reliance is placed for the aforesaid contention are Annexure R-11 a letter dated March 11, 1988 addressed to the Director, Local Government, Punjab, by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. After making a mention of note dated September 29, 1986 dealing with history of the case and the writ petition that came to be filed by Harpinder Singh in this Court, it has been mentioned that since there is no stay, plot measuring 120 x 100 feet was allotted to Vijay Kumar Tandon vide resolution No. 930 dated September 3, 1986 and he had promptly deposited three months rent as security and six months rent as advance and further that he had obtained letter of intent from the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited which was still in force and valid upto March 31, 1988. It is further stated that the site was allotted to Vijay Kumar Tandon on the basis of highest bid called in the auction of an adjacent plot and that the said allotment is in order and should be allowed. 17. Annexure R-12 is a letter addressed to the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar by the appellant dated August 6, 1986, asking for allotment of a site for establishing petrol pump as he had a letter of intent to install the same at Circular Road, near Beri Gate, Amritsar. Annexure R-13 is an office note dated August 8, 1986 mentioning therein that the site was shown to the Commissioner and Executive Officer and demarcation was also made at the site measuring 120 x 100 feet which has to be given to the applicant Vijay Kumar Tandon on lease basis. It has also been mentioned that Surjit Singh and Suresh Kumar had given a bid on March 23, 1984 @ Rs. It has also been mentioned that Surjit Singh and Suresh Kumar had given a bid on March 23, 1984 @ Rs. 2525/- per month as lease money for a period of five years for petrol pump site measuring 83 x 100 feet, adjacent to this site and the Commissioner had approved the auction on March 27, 1984. It has also been mentioned that there is a stay for the said site and the case is pending in the Court and, therefore, site measuring 120 x 100 feet outside Beri Gate, Amritsar may be given to Shri Vijay Kumar Tandon by increasing the previous bid amount, keeping in view the bid money that was to be taken from Surjit Singh. Annexure R-14 is the approval of the Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, suggesting that land measuring 120 x 100 feet leased out to Shri Vijay Kumar Tandon @ Rs. 3320/- on pro-rata basis for petrol station be given for a period of five years in the first instance which shall be renewed from time to time as per Government instructions. Annexure R-15 dated August 25, 1986 is an order of Commissioner in which some background of the case has been given. It has been mentioned therein that the party, who was earlier granted leave, had failed to take possession on one pretext or the other. In fact, the said party did not get dealership for Petrol Pump and on the contrary started litigation with a view to delimit setting up of petrol pump which was causing permanent loss to the Corporation. It has further been mentioned in Annexure R-15 as follows :- "The applicant Mr. Vijay Kumar Tandon has enclosed the copy of the offer of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh in his name which is valid for a period of 4 months. The location is the same as previous one (Emphasis supplied). I, therefore, agree with the office that the site measuring 120 ft x 100 ft be leased out to the party Shri Vijay Kumar Tandon for a period of five years renewable subsequently, on the terms and conditions to be decided mutually by the parties. The previous party may also be given a notice to produce any letter of authority from the company vide which they have been given dealership so that their case can also be considered on merits. The previous party may also be given a notice to produce any letter of authority from the company vide which they have been given dealership so that their case can also be considered on merits. Regarding rent, the pro-rata rent as proposed by the Executive Officer based on the previous auction be charged from them from the date of possession". 18. Annexure R-16 is a letter addressed to the Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar by the Manager Sales, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. This is only an advice not to proceed in the matter of auction of the petrol pump as the auction had not been approved by the Oil Industry and is, thus, likely to result into unnecessary complication and would be against the accepted norms fixed for the allotment of new dealership. Annexure R-17 is a letter addressed to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government vide which the Government agreed to the proposal of the Municipal Corporation for leasing out the site for petrol pump opposite Beri Gate, Amritsar to Shri Vijay Kumar Tandon, who holds a valid letter of intent from the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. Annexure R-18 is a letter addressed to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar by the Deputy Secretary, Local Government, Punjab, mentioning that since Shri V.K. Tandon has been given an adjacent land for the site of petrol pump at Beri Gate, the Municipal Corporation may take decision at its own level in the case of Shri Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar. Annexures R-19 and R-20 are the letters addressed to M/s Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar by the Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. Vide letter, Annexure R-19 M/s Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar was asked to do certain things, mentioned therein. It appears that the letter aforesaid came to be addressed to M/s Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar before the lease granted in its favour had since not been cancelled. Vide letter Annexure R-20 it has been mentioned that after reconsideration of the matter on merits, the Commissioner, Corporation, Amritsar had decided vide his order dated March 19, 1986 to put the site to re-auction and the amount deposited stood forfeited. 19. The material brought on record by way of additional documents, read with the case file, referred to above, in our view, would not make the lease in favour of appellant a clean transaction. 19. The material brought on record by way of additional documents, read with the case file, referred to above, in our view, would not make the lease in favour of appellant a clean transaction. Noting dated August 16, 1986 at page 71, inter-alia, states that by virtue of orders passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge, lease can not be confirmed and no person participated in the bid. It is surprising to note as to how it came to be recorded that no person participated in the bid despite the fact that no auction was conducted. The very basis of granting lease to the appellant by negotiations and not by auction proceeds on the premise that no person had participated in the bid inasmuch as Senior Sub Judge had granted stay and lease can not be confirmed. "First of all, we would like to mention that even if Senior Sub Judge had granted stay that lease can not be confirmed, the said order had merged into order passed by learned Additional District Judge, referred to above, wherein it was clearly directed on September 12, 1986 that lease should be granted by way of an open auction. Mentioning in the note aforesaid that Senior Sub Judge had ordered that lease shall not be confirmed, in the circumstances referred to above, is, thus, totally incorrect." Further, as mentioned above, the basis of allotment of site to the appellant that no person had participated in the bid is equally incorrect inasmuch as no auction came to be conducted. In the subsequent portion of the note aforesaid, it has also been mentioned that the previous auction could not be held due to stay order obtained by M/s Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar and the Corporation decided to allot the adjacent land on pro-rata lease money to Shri Vijay Kumar Tandon vide resolution No. 930 dated September 3, 1986 @ Rs. 3320/- per month for land measuring 120 x 100 feet in order to avoid recurring loss to it. Here, even though it has been mentioned that the Corporation had decided to allot the adjacent land to the appellant vide resolution dated September 3, 1986, yet the basis is that the previous auction could not be held due to stay order obtained by M/s Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar. Which is this previous auction mentioned in the note is not known. Which is this previous auction mentioned in the note is not known. The only auction conducted for the site the one in which M/s Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar was successful. That lease, as mentioned above, was cancelled. The stay order passed by the learned Additional District Judge was not to deal with the site by secret negotiations and to do it by way of open auction. There was no stay of auction and mentioning that auction could not be held due to stay order is, thus, totally incorrect. In the same very note, it has also been mentioned that in an appeal filed by M/s Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar, learned Additional District Judge, vide order dated September 12, 1986 had directed that the Corporation shall not lease out the property through some secret deal and further that the order would not debar the Corporation from leasing out the disputed property by public auction. After making the note to the effect aforesaid, proposal was that the land be leased by open auction on the conditions, as referred to above and yet, vide resolution No. 930 dated September 3, 1986 it had already been decided to allot the site to the appellant @ Rs. 3320/- per month. As per proposal for auction, the same was to be conducted on September 29, 1986 at 3 PM. 20. As mentioned above, resolution to allot the site to the appellant was passed on September 3, 1986, whereas learned Additional District Judge passed the order on September 12, 1986. It appears that it was not brought to the notice of learned Additional District Judge that resolution had since already been passed to allot the site to the appellant to establish a petrol pump. Further, letter of Government dated December 3, 1986, was produced in Civil Writ Petition No. 5217 of 1986, by virtue of which the said writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous, wherein it was mentioned that the matter regarding leasing out of the site for petrol pump outside Beri Gate, Amritsar, was considered by the Government and it was felt that terms of auction need to be suitably revised if the site had to be auctioned. Accordingly, Committee, consisting of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, Director, Local Government, Punjab, Chief Town Planner, Punjab was constituted to decide the issue and also to settle the terms and conditions for the auction of the site. Accordingly, Committee, consisting of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, Director, Local Government, Punjab, Chief Town Planner, Punjab was constituted to decide the issue and also to settle the terms and conditions for the auction of the site. Despite the fact that decision was taken by the Government to allot the site by way of an open auction, terms whereof were to be settled by the committe, referred to above, yet, in fact and reality, vide resolution dated September 3, 1986, decision had already been taken by the Municipal Corporation to allot it by way of lease to the appellant by negotiations and not by open auction. All this really shows that the Municipal Corporation brought to an end all proceedings seeking allotment of site by auction by way of a well designed plan and at the same time not disclosing that fact to the various courts that the resolution had since already been passed to allot the site to establish a petrol pump to the appellant. The design, it appears, was to make a slight change in the dimension of the plot and to make it look like a case as if a site other than the one, subject matter of litigation in various matters, would be allotted to the appellant and further to make it look genuine, raised the ground of appellant having letter of intent from a petroleum company, which was not a condition when it was auctioned in favour of M/s Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar and should have surely not concerned the Municipal Corporation, as any one who was to have a lease of the site for establishing a petrol pump, had necessarily to have letter of intent from one of the recognised oil companies. That is why we say that it is a case of subterfuge. It is surprising to note that lease money that was to be charged from the appellant was on pro-rata basis, i.e., the lease money was commensurate to the area which was earlier leased out to M/s Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar. In ultimate analysis, the lease came to be executed in favour of the appellant after about two years. Why, at that stage, the rates were not revised. Surely, in time lag of two years, open auction in the area by competition would have fetched far more money than that was offered by M/s Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar. In ultimate analysis, the lease came to be executed in favour of the appellant after about two years. Why, at that stage, the rates were not revised. Surely, in time lag of two years, open auction in the area by competition would have fetched far more money than that was offered by M/s Surjit Singh Suresh Kumar. Still further, lease money was to be revised after five years and it is an admitted position that at no stage till date it has been revised. So much so, it is only when it was enquired during the course of arguments, as to whether the appellant had paid the lease money for all these years as also as to whether the same stood revised ever, prompt came an application vide CM No. 3138 of 2000 by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, seeking a direction to be issued to the appellant to pay the lease money for all the previous years. It had been paid now during the pendency of the appeal and that too without interest, even though it was demanded by the Municipal Corporation vide Civil Misc. Application No. 3138 of 2000. The conduct of Municipal corporation, surely, needs to be condemned as not only that it clearly favoured the appellant in the matter of grant of lease of land for establishing a petrol pump, but defended its wrongful action at all stages and on such grounds which can not possibly be sustained. It is even being now urged by the Municipal Corporation and that too by pleadings that this Court should take a practical view of the matter and permit the appellant to continue with the petrol pump as so many years have rolled by. We find absolutely no justification for the Municipal Corporation to take such a partisan view, as has been taken by it, to prop up an undefendable cause. 21. As mentioned above, Annexure R-9 is a letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar dated November 17, 1986 wherein it has been mentioned that vide agreement executed between erstwhile Municipal Committee, Amritsar and the Government of Punjab, on May 14, 1943 regarding management of Nazul land, same can be utilised for public purposes, such as, gardens, schools, filling stations, fire stations etc. and that it has been proposed that a piece of land measuring 100 x 120 feet as shown in the enclosed plan, situated outside Beri Gate, may be leased out for petrol pump and that no objection certificate for leasing out the aforesaid land be issued. Nothing at all has been mentioned in the letter aforesaid that vide resolution dated September 3, 1986 the Municipal Corporation had already decided that plot measuring 100 x 120 feet is to be leased out to the appellant @ Rs. 3320/- per month. Site plan attached with the letter, Annexure R-9, shows site only for one petrol pump measuring 120 x 100 feet. The site for petrol pump shown therein does not appear to be forming part of a park whereas the one now brought on records of the case as Annexure R-3, shows that the site of petrol pump that was ultimately leased out to the appellant, forms part of a park. The site plan attached with the letter, referred to above, does not at all tally with Annexure R-3. 22. A reading of the documents and notings made from time to time, as referred to above, in our view, clearly demonstrate that the Municipal Corporation doled sheer favour to the appellant by ignoring all the norms, rules and so much so even by subterfuge. In no way, thus, lease of land given to the appellant for setting up a petrol pump can possibly be sustained. 23. Reliance placed upon judgments of Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, AIR 1987 SC 251 and Netai Bag v. State of W.B., 2000 (8) SCC 262 is wholly misplaced. Nand Lals case (supra) is cited to show that the Government can grant lease or licence without advertisement and invite offers from particular persons. Relevant facts of the case would show that a policy decision was taken by the Government which was to ensure construction and setting up of new distilleries with modern plant and machinery at new sites. It is with a view to achieve the aforesaid object that the Government decided to grant the licence to those contractors, who were already doing such job in other districts on the terms and conditions set out in the recommendations of the Cabinet Committee. It is with a view to achieve the aforesaid object that the Government decided to grant the licence to those contractors, who were already doing such job in other districts on the terms and conditions set out in the recommendations of the Cabinet Committee. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case it was observed that the Government could not be said to have acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Netai Bags case (supra) has been cited by learned counsel for the appellant in his endeavour to show that the court can examine only the fairness of the decision making process and can not interfere with the ultimate policy decision merely because, in its opinion, another decision would have been better and further that the initial burden of showing prima facie evidence of unconstitutionality of the impugned action lies upon the petitioner. Surely, we are not examining the policy of the Government or Municipal Corporations and the petitioner in the present case, in our view, has proved allegations of malafide so taken in the pleadings on the basis of record. In view of what has been said above, we are of the firm view that order of learned Single Judge, that has been impugned in the present appeal, needs no variation and is, thus, upheld. Appeal is consequently dismissed. We pass no orders as to costs only for the reason that petitioner has not chosen to appear in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.