JUDGMENT
S.R. Nayak, J.
1. This is the writ appeal filed by the 4th respondent in the writ petition assailing the correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 24.2.1997 in W.P.No. 8259 of 1996. In the said writ petition, the 4th respondent herein viz., G. Vijayavardhan assailed the action of the respondents I to 3 in allotting the Chemists stall in favour of the appellant-4th respondent by proceedings No. B/C/79/ Chemist Stall/Gnt./95, dated 13.2.1996 of the 2nd respondent by way of public interest litigation. Among other grounds, the validity of the impugned action was assailed on the ground that the 2nd respondent granted the stall to the appellant without issuing notification calling for applications from the interested persons and the procedure adopted by the official respondent is quite contrary to the well recognised procedure while disposing of the largesse of the State and its instrumentalities. The learned Judge as a matter of fact found that the stall was allotted
to the appellant without issuing tender notification and without throwing opportunity to all the eligible persons to apply for the allotment of the stall. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition as prayed for. Hence, this Writ Appeal.
2. Sri Movva Chandrasekhar Rao, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that though the writ petition was instituted as a public interest litigation, it is not a bona fide public interest litigation and the writ petitioner cannot be treated as a pro bono public character for he was set up by rival private medical shop owners. The learned Senior Counsel would also point out that no one including the writ petitioner came forward seeking allotment of the stall now allotted to the appellant and that there is no failure of justice. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would support the order of the learned single Judge.
3. Now it is well settled by the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court in a catena of pronouncements that whenever the State and the State authorities and instrumentalities of the State part with their largesse, they should practice openness, transparency and should act in the public interest and to ensure these values and objective, the Courts have held that the public auction to part with the largesse is the best and an ideal mode of disposal of the properties. From a perusal of the pleadings placed before the Court, it is seen that the railway administration has taken a policy decision to allot the stalls to the unemployed youth, obviously, for providing a source of livelihood to the unemployed youth, but, in translating this policy, the railway administration cannot pick up and choose persons of their liking without throwing the opportunity to all the similarly circumstanced eligible unemployed youth. In the instant case, it is a fact that before allotting the
chemist stall in favour of the appellant, the 2nd respondent did not issue any notification calling for applications from eligible unemployed youth. Therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent in allotting the chemist stall in favour of the appellant is liable to be condemned as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.