Public property allotment must follow statutory rules; no mandamus can enforce outdated concessional pricing or negative equality.

Article explains that Article 226 relief cannot compel allotment of public property at an outdated concessional rate when the governing statutory rules require disposal through a prescribed and transparent process at the prevailing rate. It also states that parity under Article 14 is unavailable where there is no identically placed comparator and no fresh lease deed, regularisation, or finalised benefit in the other matters. The noted principle is that negative equality cannot be used to secure an illegality or an incomplete benefit, and public assets must be dealt with strictly in accordance with the applicable rules.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing the Development Authority to allot a commercial plot at the 1992 rate contrary to the statutory allotment rules; (ii) whether the respondent could claim parity with other newspapers whose allotments had not culminated in any fresh lease deed or final regularisation.

Issue (i): whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing the Development Authority to allot a commercial plot at the 1992 rate contrary to the statutory allotment rules.

Analysis: The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised only where a legally enforceable right and a corresponding statutory duty are shown. The land in question was a commercial plot of the Development Authority and allotment had to be made strictly under the governing rules. The earlier concessional allotments to newspapers had already been judicially interdicted, and the later rules required a transparent disposal process. A writ court cannot compel a public authority to act contrary to the statutory scheme or direct allotment at an antiquated rate when the applicable rules require disposal at the prevailing rate through the prescribed process. Such a direction would also conflict with the constitutional requirement of fairness in State disposal of public property and the principle that public assets cannot be dissipated for a consideration far below their worth.

Conclusion: The direction to allot the plot at the 1992 rate was unsustainable, and the writ of mandamus ought not to have been issued.

Issue (ii): whether the respondent could claim parity with other newspapers whose allotments had not culminated in any fresh lease deed or final regularisation.

Analysis: The materials showed that no fresh allotment, regularisation, or executed lease deed existed in favour of the other newspapers after the earlier judgment. The respondent's plot was also not situated in the Press Complex but in a distinct commercial locality, making the cases factually and legally different. Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not permit negative equality, and a party cannot seek an illegal or premature benefit merely because a similar process in other matters remained incomplete. In the absence of an identically placed comparator and a completed final benefit in other cases, parity was unavailable.

Conclusion: The claim of parity failed and could not justify the relief granted by the learned Single Judge.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, and the Development Authority was left free to deal with the property strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory rules and prevailing procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of mandamus cannot compel allotment of public property at a concessional or outdated rate when the statute requires a prescribed and transparent disposal process, and no claim to parity can succeed in the absence of a legally comparable and finally crystallised benefit in favour of others.

---