IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8448 of 2001 GANESH PRASAD SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 28.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for Zila Parishad, Madhubani as also counsel for the State. In this writ application a prayer has been made by the three petitioners that the respondent authorities of Zila Parishad, Madhubani be directed to allot shops to them which have been constructed by the Zila Parishad over plot No. 55A after removing the alleged encroachment in the land in which earlier the petitioners were running their shops. The basis for such claim of the three petitioners is an order of the allotment dated 27.10.1997 which on the face of record seems to be in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is so because by the said letter of the District Engineer, Madhubani all that was sought by way of approval is that such offer was given by Kriti Narain Singh and Ganesh Prasad Singh that they would construct their own shops on the land of the Zila Parishad which 2 would be the property of the Zila Parishad and they would be the lessee of such property. How this offer was floated, considered and accepted by an authority, which is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, is any one’s guess. It is well settled that any person while being settled with a public property will have no preferential right and in fact every one has to be given a equal chance of participation. Admittedly when the settlement of the petitioners was made in the year 1997 no such participation of the people who too would have complied the same terms and conditions was given. That being so, the very basis of the claim of the petitioners for preferential allotment of the shops cannot be accepted. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir & anor., reported in AIR 1980 S.C. 1992, wherein the Apex Court had laid down the test and requirement for settlement of property belonging to the State and its agency in the following terms: 3 “Where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will. There are two limitations imposed by law which structure and control the discretion of the Government in this behalf. The first is in regard to the terms on which largess may be granted and the other, in regard to the persons who may be recipients of such largess. Unlike a private individual, the State cannot act as it pleases in the matter of giving largess and it cannot choose to deal with any person it pleases in its absolute and unfettered discretion.” Counsel for the petitioners then contended that when they had deposited certain amount by way of reserve Zama they were entitled to be at least given an opportunity to participate in the bid for the new shops. It is on record that the petitioners were given such a notice as is contained in Annexure 5. The expectation of the petitioners that they were to be allotted first and could not have been 4 compelled to participate in the bid on the terms and conditions fixed by the Zila Parishad was in fact itself based on some misconception of fact, not at least supported by any material on record. The petitioners had infact no preferential right and if the authorities of the Zila Parishad had given them opportunity to participate in the bid, their non-participation for any reason whatsoever was to their own peril. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the allotment already made by the Zila Parishad. It is, however, observed that if there are some more shops available, the case of the petitioners would be considered with others on equal footing and on the same terms and conditions. With the aforementioned observation, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/