(1.) The grievance of the petitioner, a registered Association put succinctly is against the Resolution dated 25.09.2018 at Annexure-A vide subject No.4 made by the respondent-B.D.A. whereby the 3rd respondent-Society has been granted a civic amenity site in question, without considering the claims of all other applicants including that of the petitioner.
(2.) After service of notice, the first respondent-State has entered appearance through learned HCGP, the 2nd respondent-B.D.A. has entered appearance through its senior panel counsel Prof. G.Lakshmeesh Rao and the 3rd respondent-beneficiary of the allotment has entered appearance through the learned counsel Prof. A.Madhusudhana Rao.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner although has taken up various contentions in assailing the impugned resolution at Annexure-A strongly stresses the provisions of Rule 7 of B.D.A. (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989, as interpreted in a catena of decisions of this Court.