Public property tender sales must be fair, transparent, and properly valued; delay may be condoned for public interest.

Delay in filing the writ appeal/review was condoned where institutional delay and the public interest in adjudication on merits justified exercise of discretion under limitation law. Disposal of State land through tender was also tested against Article 14 standards of fairness, reasonableness, transparency, and public accountability, with emphasis that public authorities must secure the best reasonable price and protect the public exchequer. A grossly inadequate alienation of public property, including land affected by encroachment or inconvenience, was treated as impermissible under the public trust doctrine. The tender process was therefore held illegal and set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the writ appeal/review deserved to be condoned in the interest of public interest. (ii) Whether the tender process for sale of the tea garden land was liable to be set aside for want of fairness, reasonableness, and proper valuation.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the writ appeal/review deserved to be condoned in the interest of public interest.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was examined against the backdrop of governmental decision-making and the impact of the dispute on public property and the public exchequer. A distinction was drawn between ordinary delay and delay attributable to institutional procedure, and the larger public interest in permitting adjudication on merits was treated as a relevant consideration for exercising discretion under the law of limitation.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the tender process for sale of the tea garden land was liable to be set aside for want of fairness, reasonableness, and proper valuation.

Analysis: The sale process was tested on the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and public accountability governing State action under Article 14. The Court held that public authorities and their instrumentalities must act as prudent custodians of public property and secure the best reasonable price, and that the land could not be alienated at a grossly inadequate value merely because of encroachment or perceived inconvenience. The public trust doctrine was applied to emphasize that disposal of public property requires due care, transparency, and protection of public interest.

Conclusion: The tender process was held illegal and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the matter was decided in favour of the State by directing a fresh tender process and refund with interest to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Disposal of public property by the State or its instrumentalities must satisfy fairness, reasonableness, and public interest, and a tender process resulting in an underpriced alienation is liable to be invalidated; delay may be condoned where the broader public interest justifies adjudication on merits.

---