JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The Shop No. 2 in the "P.G.I. Complex, Chandigarh is the bone of contention. It was given on lease to Respondent No. 4 in the year 1970 for a period of one year at a monthly rent of Rs. 360/-. The lease was periodically extended. The last extension had expired on December 31, 1977. The lessee-respondent No. 4 Shri Parminder Singh did not vacate the premises. Proceedings for eviction were initiated under the provisions of the "Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971". Finally, on January 18, 2001 the District Judge had upheld the order of eviction and dismissed the respondents appeal. The shop was ultimately got vacated on January 30, 2001. 2. The P.G.I. decided to invite tenders for giving the shop on lease. However, on April 28, 2001 the President of the Institute intervened. At his asking, a Committee consisting of three senior-most Professors was constituted to consider the "possibility of extending the lease contract in favour of Shri Parminder Singh" and to fix a reasonable rate of rent/licence fee. One of the members of the Committee opined in favour of the 4th respondent. The other two recorded notes of dissent. Professor R.N. Katariya, who was one of the members of the Committee, gave a detailed note. After noticing the sequence of events, he pointed out that "there had been complaints against Capt. Parminder Singh regarding substitution of prescriptions etc.". It was noticed during a surprise check that he was over-charging. A meeting was held. He had apologised. The Director of the Institute vide his order dated August 2, 1977 had taken a lenient view and given "one more chance to Capt. Parminder Singh". It was further noticed that Capt. Parminder Singh had not executed any "licence deed after January 1, 1978. Thus, it was recommended that the shop should be allotted by auction. Even with regard to the rate of rent, it was pointed out that Shop No. 3 which had an area of 150 sq. feet was in possession of M/s Surgico Chemists. They were paying a monthly rent of Rs. 59, 890/-. The area of the shop in dispute was 360 sq. feet. By simple calculation, the rate of rent "would go beyond Rs. 1, 20, 000/-. P.M." 3. feet was in possession of M/s Surgico Chemists. They were paying a monthly rent of Rs. 59, 890/-. The area of the shop in dispute was 360 sq. feet. By simple calculation, the rate of rent "would go beyond Rs. 1, 20, 000/-. P.M." 3. It appears that on July 26, 2001 the "President of the Institute and the Minister of Health and Family Welfare considered the matter. He inter-alia directed that "Shri Parminder Singh be given back the possession of Shop No. 2. ......... He shall pay the rent at the rate similar to the adjoining Shop No. 3 of M/s Surgico and would abide by the same terms and conditions." It was further directed that "after the expiry of the lease deed of shop # 3, further leasing of Shops #2, #3 would follow the procedure laid down by the Institute." An independent inquiry to "fix the responsibility for allowing Shri Parminder Singh, to continue occupancy after 1979 without any lease deed and also for collecting the rent even after eviction" was also ordered. A photo copy of this order is placed on record as Mark "A. In pursuance to this order, an order dated August 14, 2001 was issued by the Director of the Institute in favour of the respondent No. 4. He was given the licence of the shop up to October 23, 2001 at a monthly licence fee of Rs. 59, 890/-. Various conditions were laid down. Vide order dated October 22, 2001 the lease was extended up to October 23, 2002. A 10% increase in the monthly licence fee was also made. 4. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent-authorities in giving the shop to the 4th respondent, Shri Rajesh Singh filed Civil Writ petition No. 2453 of 2001 in this Court on August 20, 2001. It was, inter alia, alleged that the petitioner had made an application to the respondents on March 31, 2001 for the allotment of the shop. He had offered a monthly rent of Rs. 1, 40, 000/-. When nothing was heard, a notice was sent through counsel on August 8, 2001. On having failed to elicit any response, the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the order dated August 14, 2001 by which the shop had been given on lease to the 4th respondent, be quashed. The matter was placed before a Bench of this Court. On having failed to elicit any response, the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the order dated August 14, 2001 by which the shop had been given on lease to the 4th respondent, be quashed. The matter was placed before a Bench of this Court. Notice of motion was directed to be issued to the respondents. 5. While the aforesaid petition was pending, Shri Vinod Goyal filed Civil Writ Petition No. 12898 of 2001. This petition was presented to the Registry on August 25, 2001. The petitioner in this case made an offer of Rs. 2, 90, 000/- per month. It was pointed out that public property has been doled out to a person who had been evicted after long litigation for a paltry sum of Rs. 59, 890/- per month. Even in this petition, a direction for the issuance of notice of motion was given. 6. In response to the notice issued by the Court, the respondents have filed their respective written statements. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, viz., the Union of India, the President of the Institute and the P.G.I. itself, the reply has been filed by Dr. S.K. Sharma, the Director of the Institute. Broadly, the replies in both the cases are on similar lines. The factual position has not been disputed. It has been, inter alia, pointed out that "the shop, in question was licensed out to respondent No. 4 after due consideration and keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and fair play and doctrine of equality". The respondents maintain that the action in giving the shop to respondent No. 4 is not arbitrary. A sympathetic view has been taken. The shop has been given to the respondent "at the rate similar to the rate at which adjoining shop No. 3 of M/s Surgico has been leased out .....". Still further, it has been averred that "after the expiry of the lease deed of shop No. 2 on 23.10.2002, the said shop will be leased out by following the procedure laid down by the respondent Institute". It is maintained that the President of the Institute, who is also the Minister for Health and Family Welfare, "has full right to act as an Appellate Authority while deciding the Appeal of respondent No. 4". 7. A separate reply has been filed by the 4th respondent. It is maintained that the President of the Institute, who is also the Minister for Health and Family Welfare, "has full right to act as an Appellate Authority while deciding the Appeal of respondent No. 4". 7. A separate reply has been filed by the 4th respondent. It has been, inter alia, averred by way of preliminary objection that the petitioners have no locus standi. The order of extension having not been challenged, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. Shop No. 2 has been rightly allotted to him "in view of the fact that the said shop was on lease with the answering respondent since 1970 and he has been regularly paying the rent to the Institute". Reference has been made to the Scheme published by the Chandigarh Administration in the Gazette on April 19, 2000 to contend that the "previous allottee shall be allowed to remain in possession of the premises. The respondent maintains that the writ petitions have been filed at the instance of his rivals. Since he had served during the emergency, he has a right to continue in possession of the premises. Thus, the respondents pray that the writ petitions be dismissed. 8. Both the petitions were posted for hearing before this Bench on March 22, 2002. The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 12898 of 2001 had stated that he was willing to pay Rs. 2, 90, 000/- per month as the rent/licence fee for the shop in dispute. To prove his bona fides, the counsel had stated that the petitioner would deposit a draft for an amount of Rs. 15 lacs in favour of the Director of the Institute. It was further urged that the shop may be given on lease in an open auction. The petitioners offer would start at Rs. 2, 90, 000/-. In case of a higher offer being made by somebody else, the petitioner shall be entitled to revise his offer. It was stated on behalf of respondent No. 4 that he was not willing to pay Rs. 2, 90, 000/- per month. At the request of the counsel for the parties, the case was adjourned for today. 9. Mr. Alok Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 12898 of 2001, states that a draft for an amount of Rs. 2, 90, 000/- per month. At the request of the counsel for the parties, the case was adjourned for today. 9. Mr. Alok Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 12898 of 2001, states that a draft for an amount of Rs. 15 lacs dated April 2, 2002 drawn on the Punjab and Sind Bank, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh was delivered to the Director of the Institute on April 2, 2002. Mr. Nehra, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, accepts this position. 10. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been contended that the action of the respondent-authorities in giving the shop in dispute to respondent No. 4 was wholly arbitrary and unfair. The claim has, however, been contested on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Pipat, appearing for the 4th respondent, has contended that in view of the Scheme notified by the Chandigarh Administration, the action of the authorities is legal and valid. 11. The short question that arises for consideration is - Did respondent Nos. 1 to 3 act legally in giving the shop to respondent No. 4 ? 12. Admittedly, the shop had been given on lease to respondent No. 4 in the year 1970 on yearly basis at the rate of Rs. 360/- per month. The rate of rent was later on raised to Rs. 720/- per month. The lease had expired on December 31, 1977. Thereafter, there was no renewal of the lease. Despite this, the 4th respondent had failed to vacate the premises. Proceedings for his eviction were initiated. These had concluded in January, 2001. Ultimately on January 30, 2001, the P.G.I. had succeeded in getting the vacant possession of the premises. The 4th respondent was evicted. 13. The P.G.I. having got the possession of the premises, wanted to allot it by inviting tenders. However, on account of intervention of the President, the matter was kept in abeyance. The case was referred to a three-member Committee. Two of these had categocially recommended that the shop should be allotted by open auction. Even with regard to the rate of rent, it was pointed out that the adjoining shop which had an area of only 150 sq. feet was fetching a monthly rent of Rs. 59, 890/-. The area of the shop in dispute being more than double, the rate of rent should be above Rs. 1, 20, 000/- per month. Even with regard to the rate of rent, it was pointed out that the adjoining shop which had an area of only 150 sq. feet was fetching a monthly rent of Rs. 59, 890/-. The area of the shop in dispute being more than double, the rate of rent should be above Rs. 1, 20, 000/- per month. Despite this recommendation, the President of the Institute had chosen to direct the authorities that the 4th respondent should be given the possession of that shop. That too at a monthly rent of Rs. 59, 890/-. Why ? No reason whatsoever has been disclosed from the record. 14. Mr. Nehra points out that the Honble Minister had ordered an inquiry into the reasons on account of which Parminder Singh had been allowed to remain in possession after the year 1979. Assuming that the conduct of certain officers of the P.G.I. was required to be gone into, it did not furnish any reason for handing over the possession for the premises from which Capt. Parminder Singh had been evicted after following the process of law. The Minister may have been perfectly justified in ordering an inquiry into the reasons for which the authorities had allowed Parminder Singh to remain in possession. However, this did not provide any justification for handing over of possession of the premises to the person who had been evicted with difficulty. Still further, there is no explanation for the direction that Parminder Singh "shall pay the rent at the rate similar to the adjoining Shop No. 3 of M/s Surgico .......". Admittedly, the area of Shop No. 2 was more than double of Shop No. 3. Yet, it was ordered to be given at the same rate. Why ? There is no explanation. 15. We have repeatedly asked Mr. Nehra to point out if there is any provision in the "Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Act, 1966" or the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder which may empower the President to issue such directions. Learned counsel has been only able to refer to certain financial powers mentioned in Schedule I and the disciplinary jurisdiction of the President in Schedule II. However, no provision empowering the President to order the handing over of possession of the property of the Institute to any individual has been pointed out. Learned counsel has been only able to refer to certain financial powers mentioned in Schedule I and the disciplinary jurisdiction of the President in Schedule II. However, no provision empowering the President to order the handing over of possession of the property of the Institute to any individual has been pointed out. Even learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has not been able to show that the President of the Institute had the jurisdiction to pass the order in pursuance to which the possession of the premises was given to the said respondent. 16. In view of the above, we are constrained to conclude that the order dated July 26, 2001 passed by the President of the Institute was wholly without jurisdiction. 17. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioners in these two cases have made an offer for amounts which are substantially higher than the rate at which the shop was given to respondent No. 4. One of these offers was with the respondent even prior to the passing of the impugned order. At the lowest, Dr. R.N. Katariya in his note of dissent had categorically pointed out that the area of Shop No. 2 was more than double of Shop No. 3. The monthly rental should be above Rs. 1, 20, 000/-. Yet, the Minister had chosen to direct that the shop be given to respondent No. 4 at the same rate at which the occupant of Shop No. 3 was paying. Why ? There is no explanation either in the written statements or at the hearing of these cases. Apparently, financial interests of the Institute were completely overlooked by its own President. 18. It needs to be mentioned that the public property is a trust with the authorities. They are under a duty to administer it according to law. To preserve and protect it so as to promote public good and not an individuals interests. In the present case, this basic principle has been completely overlooked. The Presidents order promotes only private and not public interest. It was a favour to respondent No. 4 at the cost of the State exchequer. 19. Mr. Pipat, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, has submitted that in view of the Scheme notified by the Chandigarh Administration in the official gazette on April 19, 2000 the action of the respondents is legal and valid. It was a favour to respondent No. 4 at the cost of the State exchequer. 19. Mr. Pipat, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, has submitted that in view of the Scheme notified by the Chandigarh Administration in the official gazette on April 19, 2000 the action of the respondents is legal and valid. Specific reference has been made to paragraph 7 of the Scheme in which it has been, inter alia, provided that "After coming into force of this Scheme, shops/booths of Chandigarh Administration, except those already allotted shall be given on lease only by public auction". On the basis of this provision, the learned counsel has contended that the Minister was justified in passing the impugned order. Is it so ? 20. A perusal of the Scheme shows that it was for "leasing out of Government buildup shops/Booths in Chandigarh ...........". The Scheme regulates the powers of the Chandigarh Administration to lease out the shops/booths. It is the admitted position that the shop in dispute does not belong to the Chandigarh Administration. Its allotment has never been made by the Administration. The allotment even in the year 1970 had been made only by the Institute. In this situation, it is clear that the provisions of the Scheme do not have any application to the present case. In any event, even if it is assumed that the Scheme was applicable, the protection of paragraph-7 is available only to a person to whom the shop had been allotted. In the present case, it is the admitted position that the 4th respondent had been duly evicted from the shop after following the prescribed procedure. After the year 1977, there was no extension of lease. His possession had continued to be unauthorised. Thus, the 4th respondent can derive no advantage from the provisions of the Scheme. 21. Before parting with the cases, we may mention that this is not the first time that we have found that the authorities have shown scant regard for public interest. Some time back, we had come across a case where a higher offer was not accepted and the "Chemist shop near the emergency was given on lease for Rs. 4 lacs per month. Ultimately, the same party had offered Rs. 7, 60, 000/- per month. Similarly, even in the mater of allotment of Cafeteria/Canteen, it was noticed that higher offers were being over-looked. 4 lacs per month. Ultimately, the same party had offered Rs. 7, 60, 000/- per month. Similarly, even in the mater of allotment of Cafeteria/Canteen, it was noticed that higher offers were being over-looked. The respondents are dealing with public property. It is a trust which should not be betrayed. The cases like the present leave a definite impression that the authorities take care of private interest more than the public interest. The present case is a glaring example. A shop for which an offer of Rs. 2, 90, 000/- per month had been made has been given away for a paltry sum of Rs. 60, 000/- per month approximately. This clearly shows a loss of about Rs. 2, 25, 000/- per month to the State exchequer. Who is responsible for this loss ? Are the authorities entitled to act arbitrarily and turn a blind eye to public interest ? Does the tax payer pay for the protection of public or private interest ? We hope, the present case would ensure that acts like the present one are not repeated. 22. No other point has been raised by any of the parties. 23. In view of the above, we hold that :- i) the action of the respondent-authorities in allotting the shop to respondent No. 4 was wholly arbitrary and illegal. The order in his favour is quashed; ii) in order to ensure that the 4th respondent gets a reasonable time to remove the medicines and hand over the possession, he is given two weeks time to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the Estate Officer of the respondent-Institute; iii) the shop shall be allotted by open auction. The Institute shall be entitled to fix a reasonable amount as security before a person is allowed to participate in the auction so that in the event of a person not honouring his offer, the amount of security is forfeited. The auction would start with a reserve rate of Rs. 2, 90, 000/- per month as offered by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 12898 of 2001. If anyone makes a higher offer, the petitioner shall have the right to revise his offer. Lease rights shall be given to the person making the highest offer. The auction would start with a reserve rate of Rs. 2, 90, 000/- per month as offered by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 12898 of 2001. If anyone makes a higher offer, the petitioner shall have the right to revise his offer. Lease rights shall be given to the person making the highest offer. This would, however, be subject to the Institute being satisfied about the capacity of the person to pay after he has got the shop on lease; iv) in case, the petitioner does not stand by his offer of Rs. 2, 90, 000/- per month, the amount of Rs. 15 lacs deposited by him shall stand forfeited. In that event, the Institute shall be entitled to issue a fresh notice for auction. For the present, the amount of Rs. 15 lacs deposited by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 12898 of 2001 shall be kept in a bank at a suitable rate of interest. In case, the Institute accepts a higher offer than Rs. 2, 90, 000/- per month given by a party other than the petitioner, the amount along with interest accruing thereon shall be refunded to the petitioner. In event of the petitioners offer being accepted, this amount shall be adjusted towards security, etc. as provided for by the Institute. The balance, if any, shall be paid to the petitioner; and v) the notice of auction shall be issued immediately. The auction shall be held on or before April 30, 2002. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed in the above them. In the circumstances of the case, we do not want to burden the already burdened State exchequer by awarding costs to the petitioners. A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges. Petitions allowed.