show case the State of Maharashtra and its culture to tourists both within and outside the country. The submission is that it was in this background that a contribution was made on behalf of the State towards the initial cost of acquisition. However, that object is, according to the Petitioner, now defeated by allowing the train to ply outside the State. The second submission is that a private arrangement has been entered into by the Third Respondent with the Seventh Respondent without inviting tenders under which the train has been made available for the benefit of the Seventh Respondent. Counsel emphasized that any dealing with public property without inviting tenders must at least prima facie incur the vice of arbitrariness. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in the absence of an invitation to tender the Third Respondent would have no indication of what revenue can be realized by the charter hire of the train and that as a result the arrangement which is made with the Seventh Respondent must be set aside. The Seventh Respondent has in turn entered into an agreement with the Sixth Respondent, the Travel Corporation of India Limited, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Thomas Cook India Limited,
