threshold, articulating a quasi-trustee standard for the exercise of all government power, and fashioning a resolution that was prospective and ameliorative, Backbay anticipated the robust administrative law and public interest litigation (PIL) jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court in later years." (c) Antulay in which cement was distributed by the Chief Minister to builders who happened to give donations to Indira Gandhi Pratishtan. Justice Lentin found that there was quid pro quo and held that the administration was accountable even when it extracted donations for a public trust. The Chief Minister had to resign his office promptly. He was Legal Correspondent for Times of India from 1963 to 1969. Mr. Desai was Professor of Law in Law College, Bombay from 1964 and Lecturer in Law in Bombay College of Journalism from 1967 to 1972. Desai moved from Bombay to New Delhi in 1989, when he was appointed Solicitor General of India by then Prime Minister V.P. Singh. After December 1990 after resigning as Solicitor General of India, he continued practising in Delhi. He was appointed Attorney General for India on 9 July 1996 by Prime Minister H.D. Devegowda and continued to hold office under Prime Minister I.K. Gujral till he resigned as on 6 May 1998. Some of the cases of general interest in Supreme Court include the case of – (a) Ramanna Shetty on the obligation of the State to act fairly. The case dealt with a tender for a food stall in the Bombay Airport where despite the conditions of eligibility a non-eligible person was given the allotment. Justice Bhagwati's extended Article 14 as dealing not only with equality as such but also arbitrariness on the ground that arbitrariness was anathema to equality. "Applying principles of administrative law given the expansion of State’s functions, the Court took upon itself the role of stepping in "to structure and restrict the power of executive government so as to prevent its arbitrary application or exercise " (b) Narasimha Rao about Parliamentary privilege. The case involved critical parliamentary votes on a motion of ‘no confidence’ which were being obtained by payment of money. The Supreme Court accepted the submission that Member of Parliament would be a public servant and would be subject to the Prevention of Corruption Act. By a narrow majority the Court held that a Member of Parliament had immunity regarding any scrutiny of the reason as to why he