Facts of the Case
The Government granted a mining lease to a person who was politically influential. The grant was made on a pick-and-choose basis, without following a transparent procedure such as public auction or fair selection criteria. Other eligible applicants were ignored, and no clear reasons were recorded for preferring the influential person. A public-spirited citizen, who is not personally affected by the grant, challenges the allotment on the ground that it is arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to public interest. The issue arises whether such a citizen has the locus standi to challenge the government action.
Issues in the Case
- Whether grant of mining lease on pick-and-choose basis violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether allocation of natural resources must follow fair and transparent procedures.
- Whether a public-spirited citizen has locus standi to challenge such grant.
- Whether the High Court can entertain the petition under Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgements
Natural resources such as minerals are public property held by the State in trust for the people. Under the Doctrine of Public Trust, the government must act fairly, transparently, and for public good while allocating such resources.
In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979), the Supreme Court held that government actions must be non-arbitrary and conform to Article 14. In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2G Spectrum Case, 2012), the Court ruled that allocation of natural resources through arbitrary methods violates constitutional principles and that public-spirited persons can challenge such actions.
The concept of Public Interest Litigation, recognized in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), liberalized locus standi, allowing any bona fide citizen to approach the court when public interest is affected.
Possible Judgement
The court is likely to hold that the mining lease granted on a pick-and-choose basis is arbitrary and unconstitutional, violating Article 14. The public-spirited citizen has valid locus standi under PIL, as the matter concerns misuse of public resources. The lease is likely to be quashed, and the government may be directed to re-allot the mining rights through a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory process. Thus, the challenge would succeed.
About lawgnan
Administrative Law questions on public interest litigation, arbitrariness, and allocation of natural resources are frequently asked in LLB and judiciary exams. Understanding how courts protect public resources and allow citizens to challenge unfair government action is essential. For more exam-oriented Administrative Law problem answers, PIL concepts, landmark case analyses, and simplified legal notes, visit lawgana.in. LawGana is built exclusively for Indian law students preparing for LLB, judiciary, and competitive examinations. Follow lawgana.in to strengthen your concepts and improve answer-writing skills.
