Judgment : 1. At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in allotting open space admeasuring Acs.2-00 cents in the A.P.Industrial Estate, Anantapur, to respondent No.3 vide Letter No.APIIC/DW/D7/TIEM-ATP/2007, dated 29-03-2008, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential relief to set aside the same. 3. I have heard Mr.K.Suresh Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Roy Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’), appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Mr.G.Maloji Rao, learned Counsel for respondent No.3. 4. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that in the year 1995, the petitioner, respondent No.3 and five others made their respective applications for allotment of Ac.1-14 cents of land in the A.P. Industrial Estate, Anantapur, for establishment of industries. Neither the allotment was made to any of these applicants nor rejections orders were issued. It, however, appears that in the year 2007, respondent No.3 has approached respondent No.2 for allotment of Acs.2-00 cents of land, which included the above-mentioned extent of Ac.1-14 cents, for setting up of an industry. By letter, dated 29-03-2008, the Executive Director (M) of the Corporation informed respondent No.3 that it was decided to allot the extent of Acs.2-00 cents of land opposite the administrative building at Industrial Area, Anantapur, in favour of M/s.Techno Industrial Engineering, Material Testing, Designing-cum-Servicing Centre, a partnership firm of respondent No.3, which shall be subject to approval of the revised lay out of the Industrial Park by the Director of Town and Country Planning. 5. When respondent No.3 has approached for final allotment order, the said request was examined by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and they have proposed to obtain approval of the Director of Town and Country Planning for revised lay out for earmarking the extent of Acs.2-00, provisionally allotted to respondent No.3, for industrial plots. Thereafter, the Corporation has submitted a revised lay out plan of Industrial Park, by converting the open space into plots, to the Director, Town and Country Planning, on 08-12-2008 for approval. Thereafter, the Corporation has submitted a revised lay out plan of Industrial Park, by converting the open space into plots, to the Director, Town and Country Planning, on 08-12-2008 for approval. As A.Narayanapuram notified Gram Panchayat Industrial Area Service Society raised an objection to the said proposal, the Corporation has withdrawn its application for revision of lay out plan on 22-12-2008 and requested respondent No.3 to give consent for alternative allotment of allotable land of about Ac.1-60 cents at Industrial Park, Anantapur, without disturbing the existing lay out. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the said proposal, respondent No.3 filed WP.No.2883 of 2009 in this Court. Pending the said Writ Petition, respondent No.3 again approached the Corporation with a request for allotment of the extent of Acs.2-00 cents, which was earmarked as open area. The Corporation accepted the said request on 24-01-2011 subject to certain conditions and without prejudice to its right to contest the pending Writ Petition. However, respondent No.3 has withdrawn WP.No.2883 of 2009, in view of the above-mentioned decision of the Corporation. Following the withdrawal of the said Writ Petition by respondent No.3, the Corporation has issued provisional allotment order on 18-03-2011 in favour of respondent No.3 and physical possession of the land was stated to have been handed over to respondent No.3 on 13-04-2011. Feeling aggrieved by the above action of the Corporation in allotting the land to respondent No.3, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 7. In his affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner averred that when he sought to know the status of the applications, for allotment of Ac.1-14 cents of land, made by him, respondent No.3 and others in the year 1995 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, respondent No.2 has replied on 01-04-2011 that those applications were not considered for the reason that the said land was reserved as open space in the approved lay out. A perusal of the said letter would show that respondent No.3 has made two applications for the same plot at serial Nos.2 and 7 of the tabular statement. The said statement contains the column “Whether EMD admitted or not.” In respect of Serial Nos.1 to 3 and 7, it is shown as “admitted and refunded”. However, in respect of Serial No.2 under the said words, the words “but not accepted” have been added in manuscript without any signature. The said statement contains the column “Whether EMD admitted or not.” In respect of Serial Nos.1 to 3 and 7, it is shown as “admitted and refunded”. However, in respect of Serial No.2 under the said words, the words “but not accepted” have been added in manuscript without any signature. In response to the petitioner’s further letter, dated 08-04-2011, respondent No.2 has informed the former through his letter, dated 18-04-2011, that the reason for rejection of the petitioner’s application for allotment of land was that previously the land was earmarked as park in the then lay out. 8. At the hearing, Sri K.Suresh Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have acted in a patently arbitrary and discriminatory manner by choosing respondent No.3 for a favoured treatment. He submitted that the lack of transparency on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is apparent from the fact that even before the proposal for revised lay out to convert the open space into industrial plots was submitted, the request of respondent No.3 for allotment of Acs.2-00 of land was accepted and that by stating that the land was previously earmarked as park, respondent No.2 sought to create an impression that its status has, subsequently, been changed which is totally misleading, as, from their own averments in the counter-affidavit, it is evident that even now the status of the said land continues to be open land earmarked for park. 9. Mr.P.Roy Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, representing respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Mr.Maloji Rao, learned Counsel for respondent No.3, sought to defend the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in allotting the land to respondent No.3. 10. A perusal of the counter-affidavit of the General Manager (Law) filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 would show that the applications submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.3 and others in the year 1995 were not considered; that the petitioner’s application was the earliest as it was dated 25-03-1995 and that for inexplicable reasons, respondent No.3 has made two applications on the same date i.e., 16-10-1995 for the same extent for which the petitioner made his application. The said applications were not considered for the reason that the land is covered under open space as per the approved lay out plan. The said applications were not considered for the reason that the land is covered under open space as per the approved lay out plan. Interestingly, when the EMD submitted by the petitioner and respondent No.3 in respect of one application were shown to have been refunded, in the information furnished on 01-04-2001 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it is written against the application of respondent No.3 at serial No.2 as “but not accepted”. However, in the detailed statement given in the counter-affidavit, with regard to one of the applications of respondent No.3 shown at serial No.2 under the column “Whether EMD admitted or not”, it is mentioned that the “EMD was admitted and refunded. But the applicant had not encashed the cheque”. A similar endorsement was made in respect of another applicant viz., C.Ramayya at serial No.3. When these discrepancies were pointed out at the hearing, Mr.P.Roy Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, explained that even though the EMD amounts were returned after their encashment by the Corporation through cheques, respondent No.3 and C.Ramayya have not encashed the same. 11. The question, which arises for consideration in this case, is whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 have maintained transparency and acted in a fair and non-arbitrary manner in dealing with the applications for allotment of the industrial plot ? 12. As noted above, when the petitioner and respondent No.3 made their applications in 1995, they were not considered for allotment on the ground that the land was earmarked for open space (park). If that be the situation, respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to explain as to what was the reason for them to entertain the request of respondent No.3 after lapse of 13 years of rejection of his two applications in the absence of any changed circumstances. It is not the case of the Corporation that in these 13 years, open space was converted into industrial plots. On the contrary, it is admitted that the same situation, which prevailed in 1995, continued to exist when the petitioner and respondent No.3 have once again approached the Corporation for allotment. Even if, for any reason, the Corporation felt that a fresh consideration of the requests for allotment of the open space is needed, fairness required that an opportunity is given to every one including the petitioner. Even if, for any reason, the Corporation felt that a fresh consideration of the requests for allotment of the open space is needed, fairness required that an opportunity is given to every one including the petitioner. They ought to have issued public notice inviting applications from the interested persons for allotment of the plots. Admittedly, they have not followed this procedure. More curiously, by the time respondent No.3 has approached the Corporation, they have not even submitted proposals for revision of the approved lay out. While respondent No.3 was made provisional allotment of the subject land on 29-03-2008, the application for sanction of the revised lay out was made to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, nine months later, on 08-12-2008. This fact itself would amply demonstrate arbitrary approach of and the lack of transparency with which respondent Nos.1 and 2 have acted in choosing respondent No.3 for allotment of land. 13. It is beyond one’s comprehension that the land which was earmarked for open space in the approved lay out was provisionally allotted to respondent No.3 even without making any effort for getting the lay out revised. Further more, the Corporation has withdrawn its application for revision of lay out, and offered an alternative land to respondent No.3. When respondent No.3 has not accepted this proposal and filed a Writ Petition, they have again re-allotted the land to respondent No.3 on 24-01-2011. These facts would clinchingly establish that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have succumbed to the influence of respondent No.3, by going out of their way in making allotment of land earmarked for Industrial Park ignoring the claims of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. The counter-affidavit is silent as to when it has again applied for revision of the lay out after the allotment was made in favour of respondent No.3 on 24-03-2011 and instead, a vague statement was made that the application for revision is pending approval before the competent authority. 14. In the light of the discussion undertaken above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Corporation has failed to act in a fair and transparent manner in dealing with the public property. 14. In the light of the discussion undertaken above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Corporation has failed to act in a fair and transparent manner in dealing with the public property. It is truly baffling to note that the Corporation, which is the custodian of the public property, acted in such a highly arbitrary and whimsical manner by allotting the land, which is earmarked for open space, to respondent No.3 and denying the applications of the petitioner and others on the ground that it is not available for such allotment. 15. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned proceeding of respondent No.2 in Lr.No.APIIC/DW/D7/TIEM-ATP/2007, dated 29-03-2008, allotting the land in question in favour of respondent No.3 cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, set aside. In the event the lay out is revised and the open area is converted into industrial plots, the Corporation shall issue a public notice inviting applications from the general public and make allotment strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Arbitrariness is anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Public Servants owe their existence to the public trust and confidence. They are always and at all times accountable to the public. Their actions must not defeat public trust. 16. This case, in my opinion, is a classic example of abuse of its power by the officials of the Corporation. In public interest, it is necessary to identify the person responsible for this patent illegality, I am, therefore, of the opinion that a thorough investigation requires to be made in this regard. The Chief Secretary is directed to cause an enquiry held by the State Vigilance Commissioner with a request to him to submit his report, expeditiously and preferably, within two months from the date of receipt of his request. He shall also take appropriate action according to law on such report. 17. The Writ Petition is allowed with costs of Rs.25,000/-. The Corporation shall recover the costs from the officers concerned after fixing responsibility on them by following the due procedure of law. 18. As a sequel, interim order, dated 05-01-2012, is vacated and WVMP.No.1865 of 2012 in/& WPMP.No.466 of 2012 are disposed of.