AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 195 wordsM. Katju, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 17.6.2001, Annexure-1 to the petition and for a mandamus directing the respondents to decide the petitioner''s application dated 1.2.2001 for grant of mining lease in respect of the plot in question.
It has been held by the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others, , that ordinarily public property must be granted by public auction after advertisement in well known newspapers so that all eligible persons may apply, otherwise Article 14 of the Constitution will be violated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in Jagmohan Dutt Sharma and others v. State of U. P. and others 1998 ACJ 590. The above decision does not deal with Article 14 and hence it is distinguishable.
We, therefore, direct that the plot in question should be given only after public auction having wide publicity in well-known newspapers and in accordance with the relevant rules. If the petitioner is eligible, he may also apply for the lease amongst others.
Petition is disposed off.