Public land allotment must be transparent and non-arbitrary; public interest challenge and Article 14 scrutiny were upheld.

A public-spirited citizen could maintain a writ petition to challenge alleged misuse of public land, because land held by a public authority is a public trust asset and the grievance concerned arbitrary allotment in public interest. The allotment in favour of an educational institution was invalid as it was made without public notice, objective criteria, or a transparent policy, and was treated as impermissible largesse contrary to Article 14. Although the Division Bench used different reasoning in separate but concurring orders, both reached the same operative result, so no real difference of opinion requiring further reference was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable in public interest and whether the writ petitioner had locus standi; (ii) whether the allotment of land in favour of the educational institution was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 for want of public notice, transparent procedure, and objective criteria; (iii) whether the separate but concurring orders of the Division Bench, as considered by the nominated Judge, disclosed any real difference of opinion requiring interference.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable in public interest and whether the writ petitioner had locus standi.

Analysis: The land belonged to a public authority and was held in trust for the people. A public-spirited citizen can maintain proceedings to challenge misuse of public property where there is no proof of mala fides or that the petitioner is a busybody or meddlesome interloper. The grievance related to alleged arbitrary allotment of public land at an inadequate consideration, which was held to be a matter affecting public interest.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the writ petitioner had locus standi.

Issue (ii): whether the allotment of land in favour of the educational institution was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 for want of public notice, transparent procedure, and objective criteria.

Analysis: Public property cannot be allotted by an unfettered discretionary process. Allotment of land to educational institutions must conform to constitutional equality, fairness, and transparency, and the State may regulate or restrict educational activity, including to prevent commercialisation of education. The allotment here was made without public notice and without an objective, transparent policy consistent with the governing scheme, and the Court treated the impugned allotment as conferring an impermissible largesse on the allottee.

Conclusion: The allotment was invalid and offended Article 14.

Issue (iii): whether the separate but concurring orders of the Division Bench, as considered by the nominated Judge, disclosed any real difference of opinion requiring interference.

Analysis: Although the two orders employed different reasoning in places, they reached the same operative result. The nominated Judge correctly held that there was no point of difference warranting reference to another Bench or a full Bench, because the directions issued by the Division Bench had the same effect.

Conclusion: No interfering error was shown in the treatment of the Division Bench orders and the nominated Judge's order.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the challenge to the allotment was maintainable, the allotment was held contrary to the constitutional requirement of fairness in disposal of public land, and no real divergence existed in the High Court orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Public land must be allotted through a transparent, objective and non-arbitrary process consistent with Article 14, and a bona fide public-spirited person may challenge its misuse in public interest litigation.

---