JUDGMENT Admit. Respondents waive service of notice. By consent heard finally. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal challenges an order of the learned Single Judge dismissing a writ petition being Writ Petition no. 985 of 2002 filed by the appellant - original petitioner. 3. The appellant - original petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order passed by the State of Maharashtra - respondent no.1 allotting and granting a plot of land (immovable property) to respondent no.3 before us. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is a plot of land bearing No.131 within Achalpur City limits and which is a Government Land. The appellant as well as 3rd respondent made attempts to obtain allotment of this land in their favour. The Sub Divisional Officer rejected the request of both. However, the 3rd respondent carried the matter in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati. That appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a Revision before the State Government, which was heard and decided by Minister of the Department of Revenue. That Revision was directed against the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner. By an order dated 2-8-2000, the Minister of State for Revenue, Government of Maharashtra, set aside the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer as also the Additional Commissioner and allotted the land to 3rd respondent and directed that the necessary steps be taken in terms of Rule 28 of the Maharashtra State Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules 1971. 5. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed the above writ petition which was admitted and when listed for final hearing, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the same by the impugned order dated 25-4-2011 only on the ground that the appellant original writ petitioner has no locus to file the writ petition as he was not party to the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer, the Additional Commissioner and the State Government. Secondly, the appellant also did not file any application before any of the authorities seeking intervention in the matter. Merely because the appellant had filed another application before the Sub Divisional Officer for allotment of the land in his favour, that does not enable the appellant society to file a writ petition challenging the orders of the State. 6. Secondly, the appellant also did not file any application before any of the authorities seeking intervention in the matter. Merely because the appellant had filed another application before the Sub Divisional Officer for allotment of the land in his favour, that does not enable the appellant society to file a writ petition challenging the orders of the State. 6. The learned Judge has also held that the plot of land was earmarked for religious purpose, but not used for any such purpose since past more than 80 years. That is how the Minister directed the disposal of the plot in favour of the respondent no.3 and such an order does not call for any interference in writ jurisdiction. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and the learned Advocate on behalf of the contesting respondent no.3. With their assistance, we have perused the impugned order and some of the documents including the original writ petition and the order of the Minister. 8. In our view, with greatest respect, the learned Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of appellant's locus. Even if that is assumed to be a point which merited the dismissal of the writ petition, yet, the learned Judge ought to have considered the basic and core issue that is, the allotment of Government land. This issue goes to the root of the matter. Even if the Maharashtra State Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules 1971, enable the Government to allot lands and particularly plots of the nature stated in the writ petition, yet, it is not, as if, they can be allotted straightway and without any reference to the specific Rules and the user enumerated therein. If one peruses the Rules carefully, there are several Chapters and some heads under which various types of lands have to be dealt with. It is not clear as to which Rule the Government had in mind because under Rule 28 the land to freedom fighters, members of Armed Forces, goldsmiths and Government servants can be granted. 9. We do not see how Rule 28 was attracted. In any event, there is no reference to the nature of the land, its user, the procedure of allotment of land in the order of the Minister. 9. We do not see how Rule 28 was attracted. In any event, there is no reference to the nature of the land, its user, the procedure of allotment of land in the order of the Minister. Be that as it may, we arc now informed that pursuant to the directions of the Minister in the order impugned before the learned Single Judge, the matter was once again taken up and is stated to be pending before the Collector. If the Collector of the District is competent authority and is seized of the application made by respondent no.3, then it is incumbent upon him to follow the mandate of the Rules and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that public lands are not to be allotted unless and until the allotment precedes inviting bids and offers from public and that mode has been followed and adhered to. All such powers and particularly of the nature conferred by the 1971 Rules are in the nature of trust. There is no absolute discretion and uncontrolled and unguided power of allotment of Government or Public lands and no such authority vested in the Minister. With greatest respect, what has escaped the attention of all concerned are binding Judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Sonbehari V. Nimbkar and others V. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 1996 Bom 261 : [1996 (2) ALL MR 569] the Court held thus:- "5. Section 20 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 provides for vesting of title in the State in respect of all lands/roads etc. which are not properties of others and also provides that it shall be lawful for the Collector, subject to the order of the Commissioner, to dispose them in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf. Section 31 of the said Code provides that it would be lawful for the Collector, subject to such rules as may from time to time be made by the State Government in this behalf, to require the payment of a price for unalienated land or to sell the same by auction, and to annex such conditions to the grant as may be prescribed by such rules before land is entered upon under Section 30 which provides for occupation of unalienated land. Section 36 of the Code prescribes for transferability and heritability of occupation subject to certain restrictions. Section 40 of the Code providcs:- "Nothing contained in any provision of this Code shall derogate from the right of the State Government to dispose of any land, the property of Government, on such terms and conditions as it deems fit." Section 328 and it relevant portion is reproduced below:- "328(1). The State Government may make rules not inconsistent with the provisions of this Code for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Code. 328(2). In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters:- 328(2)(iv). under sub-section (1), the manner of disposal of the property of the State Government and under sub-section (5) of Section 20, the rules to be made for giving notice; 328(2)(x). under Section 31, the rules for the grant of unalienated land including provision for payment of price, auction and conditions to be annexed to such grant." The said Rules of 1971 made under Section 328 read with inter alia Sections 20, 31 and 40 of the Code provide for disposal of lands. Part IV of the said Rules deals with grant of land for non-agricultural purposes and sub-part B thereof deals with grant of land for residential use. The relevant Rules in this part are, for the sake of convenience, reproduced below:- "26. Disposal of building sites:- (1) Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the occupancy rights in building sites shall be disposed of by the Collector under Section 20 read with Section 31 by public auction to the highest bidder, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Collector thinks that in any particular case, there is good reason for granting the land without auction. (2) Where a building site is to be disposed of without auction under sub-rule (l), the Collector shall dispose of the site in occupancy rights under Section 20 read with Section 31 on inalienable tenure with the sanction of the Commissioner, if the occupancy price determined under sub-rule (3) does not exceed Rs. 10,000/- and with the sanction of the State Government, in other cases. 10,000/- and with the sanction of the State Government, in other cases. (3) The Collector shall determine the occupancy price of the site, regard being had to the following factors, that is to say:- (a) the sale prices of similar lands in the locality; (b) the situation of the building site; (c) the availability of, and demand for, similar lands; and (d) factors which are taken into account in determining the value of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 28. Grant of land to freedom fighters, members of armed forces, goldsmiths and Government Servants- (1) Subject to the provisions of this rule, building sites of suitable sizes may, on receipt of an application in that behalf, be granted for residential use by the Collector, with the previous sanction of the State Government to freedom fighters, serving members of the armed forces and ex-servicemen who are ordinarily residents in the State for not less than fifteen years, goldsmiths, who are ordinarily residents in the State for not less than fifteen years immediately before the commencement of the God Control Order made under the Defence of India Act, 1962 and to Government servants of the State Government, without auction in occupancy rights under Section 20 read with Section 31. (2) Such grant may be made an inalienable tenure on payment of occupancy price which may be determined having regard to the factors specified in sub-rule (3) of Rule 26, if the Collector, after necessary inquiries, is satisfied that these persons do not own any building plot or a building either in their own name or in the name of any member of their family anywhere in any urban area of the State or outside the State. (3) A serving member of the armed forces or an ex-serviceman (or if he is dead or is unable to write for any reason, then his wife, major son, father, mother or brother in an undivided family) may make an application for grant of land for residential use to the Collector. Such application shall be made through the Chairman, District Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Board. Such application shall be made through the Chairman, District Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Board. (4) Except with the previous permission of the State Government, no land shall be granted under this rule in favour of any person who having three or more than three children on the 15th day of August, 1968 or having three or less children on that date; has exceeded that number after that date." 6. We are in this petition dealing with State's power to dispose of Government land. It can be taken as settled law that the State is not and cannot be as free as an individual in selecting the recipient for its largess. A democratic Government cannot lay down arbitrary and capricious standards for the choice of persons with whom alone it will deal. Whatever its activity, the Government is still the Government and will be subject to restraints, inherent in its position in a democratic society. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty V. The International Airport Authority of India and others, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 inter alia held that:- "It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational and irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largess including award of jobs, contracts quotas, licences etc. must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard of norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory." It was further observed by the Supreme Court in the said judgment that the Government must act in public interest, it cannot act arbitrarily or without reason and if it does so, its action would be liable to be invalidated. The Supreme Court again in the case of Ram and Shyam Co. V. State of Haryana, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 267 : ( AIR 1985 SC 1147 ) reiterated the above view and further held that the State need not deal with anyone but if it does so, it must do so fairly and without exercising absolute and unfettered discretion and without unfair procedure. Thus, the position qua Government property which is in essence public property, is that it cannot be squandered away for a song by persons in power who hold the position of trust. In the right of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, let us see whether in the case before us, the allotment in favour of Yashodabai and allotment/transfer in favour of the respondent No.4 can beheld valid and legal and the burden is on the State to show that its action was not arbitrary." 10. Further, in the case of Bhupal Anna Vibhute V. Collector of Kolhapur and others, reported in AIR 1996 Bom 314 : [1996 (3) ALL MR 1], the Division Bench reiterated the principles thus :- "17. Then it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition. This argument also should not detain us any longer for now the scope of public interest litigation has been expanded by the judicial pronouncements. Several judgments were cited before us on both the sides on the question of petitioner's locus standi to file the present petition. However, we do not think it is necessary for us to refer to all of them. The petitioner before us is the resident of Jaisingpur. He is a tax payer. He is a citizen of India. In the case of Municipal Council, Ratlam V. Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 1622 , and quite a large number of judgments on that line, it has now been well settled that a rate payer of a local authority can also challenge an illegal action of that authority. Being a tax payer he is closely connected and directly interested in proper administration of the local authority. Being a tax payer he is closely connected and directly interested in proper administration of the local authority. Applying the same principle here, the petitioner being a citizen of India and a resident of State of Maharashtra is clearly entitled to see to it that the state of Maharashtra in its actions behave in a manner which is warranted by the Constitution and the laws and if it violates the Constitution or the laws he would have every right to draw the attention of the Court, by filing a PIL to those illegalities comrl1itted by the State of Maharashtra. 34. In Haji T. M. Hasan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corporation, AIR 1988 SC 157 , this is what has been held in para 14 of the judgment. "The public property owned by the State or by any instrumentality of the State should be generally sold by public auction or by inviting tenders. This Court has been insisting upon that rule, not only to get the highest price for the property but also to ensure fairness in the activities of the State and public authorities. They should undoubtedly act fairly. Their actions should be legitimate. Their dealings should be above board. Their transactions should be without aversion or affection. Nothing should be suggestive of discrimination. Nothing should be done by them which gives an impression of bias, favouritism or nepotism. Ordinarily these factors would be absent if the matter is brought to public auction or sale by tenders. That is why the Court repeatedly stated and reiterated that the State owned properties are required to be disposed of publicly. But that is not the only rule. As O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed "that though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule." There may be situations necessitating departure from the rule, but then such instances must be justified by compulsions and not by compromise. It must be justified by compelling reasons and not by just convenience." 35. The above referred judgments of the Supreme Court make it abundantly clear that when the State has to dispose of its property the normal rule is that it should be disposed of by public auction. That would bring in the highest revenue. Exception could be made if some directive principle contained in Part IV of the Constitution is sought to be achieved. 11. That would bring in the highest revenue. Exception could be made if some directive principle contained in Part IV of the Constitution is sought to be achieved. 11. Lastly, one must take note of the Recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ease of Akhil Bharatiya Upbhokta Congress V. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in AIR 2011 SC 1834 : [2011 ALL SCR 1051]. Their Lordships enunciated the Rule in the following words:- "31. What needs to be emphasized is that, the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities and/or officers of the State. Every action/decision of the State and/or its agencies/ instrumentalities to give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well defined policy, which shall be made known to the public by publication in the Official Gazette and other recognized modes of publicity and such policy must be implemented/executed by adopting a nondiscriminatory and non-arbitrary method irrespective of the class or category of persons proposed to be benefited by the policy. The distribution of largesse like allotment of land, grant of quota, permit licence etc by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favoritism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the State. 32. We may add that there cannot be any policy, much less, a rational policy of allotting land on the basis of applications made by individuals, bodies, organizations or institutions de hors an invitation or advertisement by the State or its agency/instrumentality. By entertaining applications made by individuals, organisations or institutions for allotment of land or for grant of any other type of largesse the State cannot exclude other eligible persons from lodging competing claim. Any allotment of land or grant of other form of largesse by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities by treating the exercise as a private venture is liable to be treated as arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism and/or nepotism violating the soul of the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution. 33. Any allotment of land or grant of other form of largesse by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities by treating the exercise as a private venture is liable to be treated as arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism and/or nepotism violating the soul of the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution. 33. This, however, does not mean that the State can never allot land to the institutions/ organisations engaged in educational, cultural, social or philanthropic activities or are rendering service to the Society except by way of auction. Nevertheless, it is necessary to observe that once a piece of land is earmarked or identified for allotment to institutions/organisations engaged in any such activity, the actual exercise of allotment must be done in a manner consistent with the doctrine of equality. The competent authority should, as a matter of course, issue an advertisement incorporating therein the conditions of eligibility so as to enable all similar situated eligible persons, institutions/organisations to participate in the process of allotment, whether by way of auction or otherwise. In a given case the Government may allot land at a fixed price but in that case also allotment must be preceded by a wholesome exercise consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. 34. The allotment of land by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities to a body/ organization/institution which carry the tag of caste, community or religion is not only contrary to the idea of Secular Democratic Republic but is also fraught with grave danger of dividing the society on caste or communal lines. The allotment of land to such bodies/organisations/institutions on political considerations or by way of favoritism and/or nepotism or with a view to nurture the vote bank for future is constitutionally impermissible. 35. We may now revert to the facts of this case. Admittedly, the application for reservation of land was made by Shri Kailash Joshi, in his capacity as convener of Memorial Trust. The respondents have not placed on record any document to show that on the date of application, the Memorial Trust was registered as a public trust. During the course of hearing also no such document was produced before the Court. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.5 was registered as a public trust only on 6.10.2004 i.e. after the order for reservation of land in favour of the Memorial Trust was passed. During the course of hearing also no such document was produced before the Court. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.5 was registered as a public trust only on 6.10.2004 i.e. after the order for reservation of land in favour of the Memorial Trust was passed. The allotment was also initially made in the name of trust, but, later on, the name of respondent No.5 was substituted in place of the Memorial Trust. The exercise for reservation of 30 acres land and allotment of 20 acres was not preceded by any advertisement in the news paper or by any other recognized mode of publicity inviting applications from organizations/institutions like the Memorial Trust or respondent No.5 for allotment of land and everything was done by the political and non-political functionaries of the State as if they were under a legal obligation to allot land to the Memorial Trust and/or respondent No.5. The advertisements issued by the State functionaries were only for inviting objections against the proposed reservation and/or allotment of land in favour of the Memorial Trust and not for participation in the process of allotment. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the argument of Shri Ranjit Kumar that land was allotted to respondent No.5 after following a procedure consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. 42. The challenge to the locus standi of the appellant merits rejection because it has not been disputed that the appellant is a public spirited organization and has challenged other similar allotment made in favour of Punjabi Samaj, Bhopal, that apart, as held in Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil V. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC 227 : ( AIR 1987 SC 294 ) even if a person files a writ petition for vindication of his private interest but raises question of public importance involving exercise of power by men in authority then it is the duty of the Court to enquire into the matter." 12. The above referred principles bind all of us and ought to have guided the Learned Single Judge. Unfortunately, her attention was not invited to them. In these circumstances, while not passing any further orders, what we direct is that the Collector of the District, who is seized of the application by respondent no.3, shall strictly follow the above Rules and without being influenced by any order or direction in the Order dated 2-8-2000. Unfortunately, her attention was not invited to them. In these circumstances, while not passing any further orders, what we direct is that the Collector of the District, who is seized of the application by respondent no.3, shall strictly follow the above Rules and without being influenced by any order or direction in the Order dated 2-8-2000. He shall consider the application of respondent no.3 on merits and in accordance with law. He shall act within the scope of the limited authority in such matters and take a informed decision as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 13. It would be open for the appellant - original petitioner to raise any objection before the Collector and, if any such objection is raised, the Collector to duly consider the same in accordance with law. 14. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms and by setting aside the order of the learned Single, so also that of the Minister. Ordered accordingly.