New clarifications on allotment of natural resources

Supreme court has today clarified that all allocations of natural resources need not be distributed by auction. If the allocation involves corporate profit, then it should generate good revenue for the government; so auction will be used in these cases. But those cases where public good or welfare for the poor is involved, then we can allot without auction, on case to case basis. For example , if land is acquired for an orphanage, then we should not go for the highest bidder. Government will not try to draw revenue from that allocation, so no auction is needed.We should consider the public good and view it as a better allocation. But for other natural resources like coal or oil, state should remember that it has trusteeship over the resources and that the resources belong to the people of India. So revenue generated must be used for the people. But if a coal firm offers very very cheap electricity for the people, it should be given free coal blocks. Basically, there should be transparency in allocation, there should be equality in looking at those seeking allotment, there should be some public good in distribution of natural resources. If a natural resource is given for commercial purpose, then revenue from it should be maximum. Keeping auction could be economically illogical because often 'explortion and exploitation' are grouped together for oil, minerals etc.Since the cost for exploring is high, there should be some concession and lesser revenue must be collected.There is risk of not finding any oil after intensive exploration.
At many times, it is noted that auction is not a fool-proof method of allocation. Auction could be manipulated through cartelization. It is highly suitable to use e-auction which allow bids and at the same time provide profit to firms, so that high quality affordable services are available to the people. With this clarification by the Supreme Court,  we have a good structured policy for government to follow for allocation and pricing of scarce resources like coal, petroleum, natural gas, spectrum, forests, land and water which can be better distributed by e-auction. It can be quick and easy. E-auction is most favourable as offering an economic choice for disposal of resources. But it is no compulsory and is not a constitutional mandate. If questioned, courts have to analyse its legal validity. If a policy or law is unfair, then as per Article 14 of our Constitution, it can be striked down.Now land acquisition can be done speedily as there is option for acquire without auction.
But this has brought back the same definition problems--what is a "public good" A transport firm can make a highway charging toll--this is for public good. But when it starts charging exorbitant toll, and makes huge profits, it cannot be interpreted as "public good".
Whenever a policy is made there is some beneficiaries and some losers. In the previous ruling, there were benefits for the land owners,and no benefits to the industrialists. But now the policy favours industrialists. There is reason to believe that the policy making is done so that our people (farmers or owners of land) will not be the beneficiaries. And that the rich industrialists will certainly benefit.