JAYANT PATEL, J. ( 1 ) WITH the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the main Special Civil Application is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) THE short facts of the case are that the advertisement was given by respondent No. 1 inviting offers for allotment of final plot No. 545 admeasuring 101. 24 sq. mtrs under T. P. Scheme No. 2. It appears that the petitioner submitted the offer at the rate of Rs. 7,000/= per sq. mtrs. , whereas the highest offer received was Rs. 10,124/=. It also appears that the opportunity to show the willingness of the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is ready to offer the price of Rs. 10,124/= per sq. mtrs. was given and for such purpose the communication was addressed by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner as per the letter dated 2. 9. 2004. It also appears that the petitioner asserted for acceptance of offer of Rs. 7,000/= and did not show the willingness to increase the offer at the rate of Rs. 10. 124/= per sq. mtrs. and at this stage, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 11901/2004 for challenging the action of Respondent Authority for the directions to the respondent Authority to accept the tender of the petitioner at the price at which the offer was made by the petitioner. The said Special Civil Application came to be dismissed by this Court as per the order dated 17. 9. 2004 and at para 3 it was, inter alia, observed as under:"3. HAVING considered the above, it appears that the authority had advertised for disposal of the plots and even after the receipt of the offers from interested persons, it is within the power of the authority either not to dispose of the plot by not accepting the offer of anybody and it is also within the power of the authority to raise the price and to give opportunity to the persons who have submitted offers. If the petitioner is given opportunity to give offer of Rs. 10,124/= per sq. mtr. if she desires to purchase the property, it cannot be said that the action of the authority is unreasonable or arbitrary, because ultimately it is to result into to action on the part of the authority to realise the more price of the property. If the petitioner is given opportunity to give offer of Rs. 10,124/= per sq. mtr. if she desires to purchase the property, it cannot be said that the action of the authority is unreasonable or arbitrary, because ultimately it is to result into to action on the part of the authority to realise the more price of the property. Further, until the offer of the petitioner is accepted, there is no vested right with the petitioner to assert that only her offer should be accepted, though it may be of the lower amount or not up to the expectation of the authority. " accordingly the petition was dismissed. ( 3 ) IT appears that thereafter on 29. 9. 2004, the petitioner has shown willingness to pay the price at the rate of Rs. 10,124/= per sq. mtr. for which the earlier communication was made by respondent No. 1 and in response that to the acceptance is communicated to the petitioner as per the letter dated 8. 10. 2004 by Respondent No. 1. However, the allotment made is of only 66. 55 sq. mtrs. of the land bearing Final Plot No. 545 and not of the area admeasuring 101. 24 sq. mtrs and, therefore, under these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring this petition for the relief, inter alia, to quash and set aside the decision of the first respondent of granting the land admeasuring 66. 55 sq. mtrs. from the land admeasuring 101. 24 sq. mtrs. and it is further prayed by the petitioner to quash and set aside the order for allotment of the land admeasuring 34. 69 sq. mtrs. to respondent No. 3 and the petitioner has also prayed to direct respondent No. 1 to allot the entire final plot No. 545 admeasuring 101. 24 sq. mtrs. in favour of the present petitioner as per the tender form. ( 4 ) PENDING the petition the petitioner has brought about amendment, whereby the prayer added is to quash and set aside the order dated 20th September, 2004 which is for allotment of the land in favour of respondent no. 3 whereby the land allotted is admeasuring 23. 45 sq. mtrs. at the rate of Rs. 10,124/= bearing part of final plot No. 545. ( 5 ) IT appears that as per respondent authority as the petitioner did not show willingness to offer the rate of Rs. 3 whereby the land allotted is admeasuring 23. 45 sq. mtrs. at the rate of Rs. 10,124/= bearing part of final plot No. 545. ( 5 ) IT appears that as per respondent authority as the petitioner did not show willingness to offer the rate of Rs. 10,124/= per sq. mtrs. , it is the case of respondent No. 1 that the decision was taken by respondent No. 1 to allot the land admeasuring 23. 45 sq. mtrs. at the price of Rs. 10. 124/= to respondent No. 3 on account of the alteration of final plot No. 544 which arose due to widening of the road. It is also the case of respondent No. 1 authority that though on account of the widening of the road the area which is allotted to final plot No. 544/p plus 545/p is admeasuring 66. 55 sq. mtrs. , it has been considered by the authority that as per the regulation the only construction at the ground-level would be about 53. 20 sq. mtrs. and there is also limit on the height of the building and, therefore, keeping in view the said aspect with a view to see that respondent No. 3 may be in a position to make sufficient construction so as to accommodate the family and keeping in view that respondent No. 3 is an earth-quake affected person, the decision is taken for allotment of the land admeasuring 23. 45 sq. mtrs. It also appears that there are two orders which are placed on record for allotment of the land to respondent No. 3, one is having reference No. 3121 dated 17. 9. 2004, whereas the another is having reference No. 3129 dated 20. 9. 2004. Both the orders are common but the distinguishing aspect is that in condition No. 1 in the order dated 17. 9. 2004, it has been also provided that the price will be at the rate of Rs. 10,124/= or the respondent No. 3 will be required to make the payment of the average price on the basis of the auction which may be held in near future and the difference will have to be paid, whereas such clause is not provided in the later order dated 20. 9. 2004. The reliability of the said aspects shall be dealt with hereinafter, however, by the later order dated 20. 9. 9. 2004. The reliability of the said aspects shall be dealt with hereinafter, however, by the later order dated 20. 9. 2004 it appears that there is already an allotment made by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 3 of the land admeasuring 23. 45 sq. mtrs. of final plot No. 545 at the rate of Rs. 10,124/=. ( 6 ) IT appears that as per the case of respondent No. 3, since a less area of construction was permissible in the original plot of Survey Nos. 544/p and 545/p admeasuring 66. 55 sq. mtrs. , application was made by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 1 and considering the hardship which was to be faced by respondent No. 3, the decision is taken and respondent No. 3 on the basis of the said order, has paid the amount and the land is allotted. It appears that pending the petition, in spite of the order passed by this Court on 1. 11. 2004 for making the allotment to Respondent No. 3 subject to further orders which may be passed by this Court, respondent No. 1 authority has granted permission for construction as per order dated 20. 11. 2004 and in the said order there is no reference to the aforesaid ad-interim order passed by this Court on 1. 11. 2004 in this petition. The explanation, given in the affidavit-in-reply to that aspect by respondent No. 1 authority, is that due to heavy work-load, it had gone out of the sight of respondent No. 1 and, therefore, it could not be reflected in the development permission and respondent No. 1 has tendered its apology due to inadvertence. It appears that as the permission granted to respondent No. 3 was not made subject to further orders which may be passed by this Court in this petition, Civil Application No. 10216/2004 in the present petition was preferred and this Court on 29. 12. 2004 while issuing notice in the said Civil Application by ad-interim order directed that no construction shall be made by respondent No. 3, nor the same shall be permitted by respondent No. 1, over the area admeasuring 23. 45 sq. mtrs. forming part of final plot No. 545 admeasuring 101. 24 sq. mtrs. for which the offers were invited. Thereafter, in the said Civil Application, the ad-interim order passed earlier is continued till final disposal. 45 sq. mtrs. forming part of final plot No. 545 admeasuring 101. 24 sq. mtrs. for which the offers were invited. Thereafter, in the said Civil Application, the ad-interim order passed earlier is continued till final disposal. ( 7 ) I have heard Mr. Vora, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N. J. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, Mr. Prachchhak, learned AGP appearing for Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Dave, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. ( 8 ) THE first aspect which deserves to be considered is whether respondent No. 1 could consider the offer of respondent No. 3, for allotment of the land bearing part of final plot No. 545 for which advertisement was given? It is an admitted position that in response to the public advertisement, no offer was submitted by respondent No. 3. It is also an admitted position that the plot is allotted to respondent No. 3 for which the advertisement was given and as there was no offer of respondent No. 3, the entry of respondent No. 3 in the auction proceedings was outside the zone of consideration. When the offer of the petitioner was not accepted at the rate of Rs. 7,000/= and the communication by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show the willingness to offer the price at the rate of Rs. 10,124/= was made and when the said decision was challenged in SCA No. 11901/2004, this Court as per the order dated 7. 9. 2004 as reproduced hereinabove, observed inter alia that even after the receipt of the offers from the interested persons, it was within the power of the authority not to dispose of the plot by not accepting the offer of anybody or it was also within the power of the authority to give opportunity to the persons who had submitted offers to raise the price. Therefore, in any case, consideration of the proposal of any party who has not submitted the offer in response to the advertisement by respondent No. 1 is ex facie arbitrary and cannot be allotted to be sustained for the reasons as stated hereinafter. The law on the said aspect is well settled in as much as in the disposal of the public property, the action of the statutory authorities must be transparent, just, fair and reasonable. The law on the said aspect is well settled in as much as in the disposal of the public property, the action of the statutory authorities must be transparent, just, fair and reasonable. If the proposal of any party who has not submitted offer in response to the public advertisement, is considered, it can be said to be a back-door entry and if such proposals are allowed to be considered, it would not only leave room for arbitrariness, but would create a chaotic situation. The authority may make an attempt to undertake the negotiations for procuring higher price from amongst the persons who have submitted offers in response to the public advertisement, but the entry of any person who has not submitted offer cannot be said to be in proper and transparent exercise of power. Therefore, when there was no offer of respondent No. 3, in response to the public advertisement for allotment of the plot, in any case, the offer of respondent No. 3 for allotment of the plot or any part of the land could not have been considered by respondent No. 1 as per the settled norms for disposal of public properties. ( 9 ) THE attempt made on the part of respondent No. 1 to justify the action on the ground that since sufficient construction was not permissible to the respondent No. 1 and as the respondent No. 3 is earth-quake affected person or a person who has suffered on account of T. P. Scheme, a sympathetic consideration is made is, in my view, an eye-wash in as much as it is not a matter, where amongst the offerers as per the policy of the Government priority is given to the earth-quake affected person or the person who has suffered on account of T. P. Scheme, but it is a case where the one who did not submit the offer, is considered for allotment of the land. Further, the area of the original plot of respondent No. 3 was admeasuring 73. 68 sq. mtrs. and after deduction the area allotted is 66. 55 sq. mtrs. and, therefore, if the additional area is added, the consequence would be that respondent No. 3 is allotted the land more than the original plot. It is true that for additional area respondent No. 3 is offered the land at the rate of Rs. 68 sq. mtrs. and after deduction the area allotted is 66. 55 sq. mtrs. and, therefore, if the additional area is added, the consequence would be that respondent No. 3 is allotted the land more than the original plot. It is true that for additional area respondent No. 3 is offered the land at the rate of Rs. 10,124/=, but if in exchange to the original plot, larger area is to be allotted, such cannot be said to be a sympathetic consideration on the part of the authority on the ground for T. P. Scheme affected person. Had it been a case where lesser area than the original plot was allotted, possibly it might stand on different footing. But in the present case, as observed earlier, the total area allotted, after the allotment in question, would exceed original plot held by respondent No. 3. No material is produced on record to show that there is any policy of the government to consider such proposal, without any public advertisement or without giving opportunity of all similarly situated persons and, therefore, the justification as sought to be canvassed by Mr. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted. ( 10 ) THE attempt was also made on the part of respondent No. 1 to justify the allotment to respondent No. 3, on the ground that the rights of the petitioner qua the advertisement had ceased since the petitioner did not submit willingness well in time and, therefore, the issue of advertisement and allotment in response thereto was closed, as observed in the order dated 17. 9. 2004 passed by this Court in SCA No. 11901/2004. Even if the chapter was closed in response to the advertisement, it was expected for respondent No. 1 to readvertise and to invite the offer. While readvertising or giving opportunity to the interested persons, respondent No. 1 could have divided the area of final plot No. 545 for the valid reasons in case if they are available, but the allotment of the land by private negotiations without giving opportunity to the interested persons after closing of the aspects of advertisement dated 11. 6. 2004, cannot be justified. 6. 2004, cannot be justified. Therefore, if it is the stand of respondent No. 1 that after closure of the proceedings of the auction, the offer of respondent No. 3 is considered, then such an action would not meet with the settled norms for disposal of public properties. It appears that as per the stand of respondent No. 1 even the offer of the petitioner is considered in response to the advertisement by which the offers were invited. The said aspect is apparent from the acceptance letter dated 8. 10. 2004. When the offer of the petitioner in response to the advertisement is accepted on 8. 10. 2004, the contention as sought to be raised and canvassed on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the chapter of advertisement and action was closed, does not appear to be genuine and is falsified by its own record. As such in view of the communication dated 8. 10. 2004 vide Reference No. 3295/2004 (copy whereof is produced at Annexure H) the offer of the petitioner is accepted for the land admeasuring 66. 55 sq. mtrs. at the rate of Rs. 10124/= in response to the public advertisement and, therefore, it is incorrect to state that as the period had expired for submitting offer to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 was within its right to allot the plot or a portion of the land to respondent No. 3 As such in view of the advertisement and the development and also in view of the order dated 17. 9. 2004 passed by this Court in SCA No. 11901/2004, there were two options left to the respondent No. 1, either to accept the offer of the petitioner for the whole area of final plot No. 545 for which advertisement was given or in alternative, to readvertisement for valid reasons so as to procure higher amount. It appears that the former was considered, but in part and not in full. Instead of accepting the offer of the petitioner for the total area of the land for which advertisement was given of Final Plot No. 545, the offer of the petitioner is accepted for the land admeasuring 66. 55 sq. mtrs. Such an aspect can be said as deviation from the conditions of the advertisement which is also not permissible as per the settled norms for disposal of the public property. 55 sq. mtrs. Such an aspect can be said as deviation from the conditions of the advertisement which is also not permissible as per the settled norms for disposal of the public property. If the land was to be allotted of the area admeasuring 66. 55 sq. mtrs. , the advertisement should have been for that area only. When the advertisement is issued for the land admeasuring 101. 24 sq. mtrs. , it is all possible that the person who may not have the requirement of the larger area, but may be desirous to have a lesser area might not have submitted his offer in response to the advertisement and such a departure of material conditions of the advertisement by reducing the area of the land for which the offers were invited can be said as arbitrary and would not meet with the test of reasonableness for disposal of the public property. Therefore, it appears that the decision of respondent No. 1 authority for allotment of the land admeasuring 23. 45 sq. mtrs to respondent No. 3 is illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. So far as the acceptance of offer of the petitioner for the allotment of the portion of land admeasuring 66. 55 sq. mtrs. is concerned, the same also appears to be arbitrary and making departure from the settled norms for disposal of the public property. ( 11 ) MR. VORA, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not challenging the allotment made of the land admeasuring 66. 55 sq. mtrs. , but the petition is for cancelling the offer made to respondent No. 3 and directing respondent No. 1 to accept the offer of the petitioner for allotment of the land admeasuring 101. 24 sq. mtrs. and, therefore, he submitted that this Court, in the challenge made by the petitioner, may not observe that the allotment of the land admeasuring 66. 55 sq. mtrs. to the petitioner is arbitrary or unreasonable. As such, it appears that the petitioner has also challenged the decision of the authority for allotment of the land admeasuring only 66. 55 sq. mtrs. and hence the said aspect deserves consideration. 55 sq. mtrs. to the petitioner is arbitrary or unreasonable. As such, it appears that the petitioner has also challenged the decision of the authority for allotment of the land admeasuring only 66. 55 sq. mtrs. and hence the said aspect deserves consideration. If this Court finds that the portion of the land could not have been allotted by respondent No. 1, merely because the observations are against the petitioner, the prayer of the petitioner, not to record observations, cannot be accepted. ( 12 ) IT appears that discrepancy in the order dated 17. 9. 2004 and order dated 20. 9. 2004 qua condition No. 1 is on account of the change for decision to accept the offer by private negotiation of respondent No. 3. Initially when the order dated 17. 9. 2004 was passed, the provision was made for auction. The same is expressly deleted in the subsequent order dated 20. 9. 2004. The aforesaid subsequent order shows that without there being any proper material, the condition of auction is given a go-bye. Such can be said as an arbitrary exercise of the power by Respondent No. 1 and it strengthens the contention of the petitioner that the allotment of the land is made for the consideration which is not warranted in law. ( 13 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations and discussions the impugned order for allotment of the land admeasuring 23. 45 sq. mtrs. dated 20. 9. 2004 Annexure "i" passed by respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside with the further directions to respondent No. 1 to reconsider the matter for finalisation of the offer in response to the public advertisement dated 11. 6. 2004 for allotment of the land, in light of the observations made hereinabove and to take appropriate decision either for acceptance of the offer for the total land for which the advertisement was given or to undertake the process for readvertisement, if permissible in accordance with law. ( 14 ) IT is made clear that as a consequence of the aforesaid, the permission for construction, if any, granted in favour of respondent No. 3 shall not survive, since the allotment made to respondent No. 3 was made subject to the further orders which may be passed by this Court and pending the aforesaid interim order, the permission came to be granted for construction. It is clarified that the aforesaid shall not preclude respondent No. 3 from applying for development permission over the land admeasuring 66. 55 sq. mtrs. , which is not the subject matter of this petition. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. ( 15 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 16 ) AFTER the pronouncement of the order, Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 prays for suspending the operation of the order for a period of four weeks so as to enable his client to approach before the higher forum. Considering the facts and circumstances, the status-quo qua the land in question shall be maintained by all the parties to the proceedings for a period of three weeks from today. .