VOKKALIGARA SANGHA BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY K MAHADEV Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and an 'Institution' as defined in Rule 2(d) of BDA (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989 (for short, the Rules), has filed this writ petition questioning the decision of Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'BDA') in allotting Civic Amenity Site No. 1, Nagarabhavi Layout, II Stage, II Block, Bangalore, in favour of the 2nd respondent - Mitra Wrunda Youth Association (r), Bangalore - 84. The material facts and circumstances which have given rise to this writ petition are that:

(2.) Sri S.G. Bhagavan, learned Advocate for the petitioner, firstly, argued that the BDA having issued a Notification on 31.01.2009 and having offered the site in question for allotment in favour of an eligible applicant and the petitioner having submitted application on 28.02.2009 and there being no application submitted in the prescribed Form before the last date by the 2nd respondent, seeking allotment of site in question, BDA has acted arbitrarily and illegally in allotting the site in question in favour of the 2nd respondent. Secondly, there is flagrant violation of the Rules by the BDA, in allotting the site in question in favour of the 2nd respondent. Thirdly, the impugned action of the BDA is opposed to the principles underlined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is also in derogation of the legal maxim, where a power is given to do a particular thing in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner only, other modes of performance being necessarily forbidden. Learned counsel finally, submitted that the petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria stipulated in the offer notification as at Annexure-A and the Rules and hence, the BDA may be directed to consider the petitioner's application and allot the site in question.

(3.) Sri Ashwin S. Halady, learned Advocate appearing for the BDA, on the other hand submitted that, the 2nd respondent, an allottee of site No. 3, situated at Railwaymen HBCS Layout, sought alternate allotment and hence, based on a report submitted by the Executive Engineer, decision was taken on 21.02.2009, to allot a portion of the site in question, and an allotment letter was issued on 11.03.2009 to the 2nd respondent. He further submitted that the site in question being not available for allotment, when the Committee met on 16.02.2010, it was resolved to withdraw the site from allotment process and that, the petitioner was allotted a Civic Amenity Site situated at Karnataka HBCS Layout. Learned counsel submitted that, in the circumstances, petitioner cannot feel aggrieved and sought dismissal of the writ petition.