Fairness in disposal of public property requires notice to the highest bidder before accepting a secret higher offer.

Availability of an alternative remedy does not oust Article 226 jurisdiction; it is a matter of discretion, especially where the impugned action is alleged to be illegal or invalid. In disposal of quarry rights over public property, the State must act fairly, secure the best return, and avoid clandestine private arrangements. A secret higher offer accepted without notice to the highest bidder, and without giving an opportunity to improve the bid, was treated as arbitrary, contrary to fair play and natural justice, and the impugned grant was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition could be rejected on the ground that an alternative remedy was available; (ii) Whether the grant of quarry rights to a private respondent on a secret higher offer, without giving the highest bidder an opportunity to improve his bid, was arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition could be rejected on the ground that an alternative remedy was available.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The rule is one of discretion and convenience, not of jurisdictional bar. Where the impugned action is alleged to be illegal or invalid, and especially where the effective decision is taken at the highest administrative level, the existence of an appeal is not an adequate reason to decline relief.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, and that objection failed against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the grant of quarry rights to a private respondent on a secret higher offer, without giving the highest bidder an opportunity to improve his bid, was arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

Analysis: Under Rule 28, contracts for minor minerals may be granted by auction or tender, but the State, while dealing with public property, must act fairly and secure the best available return in public interest. The rules empowering acceptance, rejection, and relaxation of bids do not authorise a clandestine private arrangement that excludes other eligible competitors. Once the State rejected the highest bid as inadequate, fairness required that the highest bidder be given an opportunity to match or improve upon any later higher offer before the contract was awarded to another. A secret offer, accepted without verification of the allegations made to support it and without notice to the highest bidder, offended the requirements of fair play and natural justice in administrative action.

Conclusion: The impugned grant in favour of the private respondent was arbitrary and had to be quashed; the appellant was entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The State's disposal of mineral rights was held to be subject to fairness, openness, and non-arbitrary treatment of competing bidders, and the appellant succeeded in obtaining quashing of the impugned grant and restoration of his claim to consideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: When the State disposes of public property or largesse, it must act fairly, non-arbitrarily, and in a manner consistent with equal opportunity and public interest; a secret private award that denies the highest bidder a fair chance to compete is invalid.

---