Judicial review of municipal land tendering must respect administrative discretion where retendering serves fair competition and public interest.

Disposal of municipal land of substantial value required prior State sanction under the statutory scheme, and transfer of income-yielding immovable property had to proceed by auction or sealed offers unless a justified departure was approved. The record indicated that the initial tender process lacked the necessary approval, but later correspondence showed State reconsideration and authorisation for the Commissioner to reject the proposal and invite fresh tenders. In judicial review, interference was confined to illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. The Commissioner's decision to retender, based on inadequate publicity, non-competitive bids, and possible cartelisation, was therefore treated as a lawful public-interest measure rather than an error warranting judicial substitution.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether prior sanction of the State Government was required and had been validly granted for disposal of municipal land under the governing statutory scheme; (ii) whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Commissioner's decision to reject the tender process and direct fresh tenders.

Issue (i): whether prior sanction of the State Government was required and had been validly granted for disposal of municipal land under the governing statutory scheme.

Analysis: Disposal of municipal land of substantial value could not be made without previous sanction of the State Government. The statutory framework also required transfer of income-yielding immovable property by auction or sealed offers, unless a departure was justified with prior State sanction. On the record, the initial tender process had not been preceded by the necessary approval. The later correspondence showed that the State Government reconsidered the matter and authorised the Commissioner to take an appropriate decision under the statute, including rejection of the proposal and initiation of fresh tendering.

Conclusion: The statutory scheme required prior State sanction, and the material on record showed that the competent authority was authorised to act on the proposal after reconsideration.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Commissioner's decision to reject the tender process and direct fresh tenders.

Analysis: Interference in judicial review was confined to illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. The Commissioner had found that the tender process lacked adequate publicity, the bids were not competitive, and there was a possibility of cartelisation. Acting to secure wider competition and better revenue for public property, he rejected the proposal and directed retendering. Those reasons were accepted by the State Government. The High Court, however, treated the matter as if it were an appeal on merits and ignored the subsequent authorisation and the public interest considerations.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering with the administrative decision, which was neither illegal nor irrational nor procedurally improper.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were unsustainable, the appeals succeeded, the High Court's directions were set aside, and the writ petition stood dismissed, with refund of the deposited amount carrying interest.

Ratio Decidendi: In judicial review of administrative action, a court may interfere only where the decision is vitiated by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, and it should not substitute its own assessment for an administrative decision taken in larger public interest to secure fair competition and better value for public property.

---