NARAYANA PAI, C. J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus in enforcement of a right claimed by him of inspecting certain records of the respondent, the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bangalore, hereinafter referred to as the Board. ( 2 ) THE factual basis for the claim is that he had applied for allotment of certain sites in a lay-out of building, sites prepared by the Board, going by the name " Raj Mahal Vilas Extension", that according to his understanding of the rules governing the allotment of sites, he was entitiled to a certain preference because he had made certain provious attempts for allotment or sites in other lay-outs prepared by the Board but that no site was allotted to him and that he suspects or has reason to believe that the persons were not persons to whom, if the rules had been fully obeyed, sites could have been or would have been allotted. He claims "i have every right to get an inspection of the records perfecting to the allotment of sites in question. Such an inspection is absolutely necessary in the interests of the purity of the administration. " he also adds that such inspection is directly related to his right or interest in respect of the preposed allotment of sites. ( 3 ) IT is common ground that in his application for allotment of a site, the petiitoncr had indicated his preference in respect of three sites in a certain order. It is also common ground that none of these sites was allotted to him nor any other site. ( 4 ) THE only question is whether the petitioner has made out such right as would entitle him to the issue of a mandamus of the type claimed by him. Although the prayer is worded in wide terms, it is made clear in the course of arguments by Mr. Ranga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that he would limit his claim of inspection to such papers as have a direct bearing upon the decision of the Board not to allot any site to him or to allot the sites, in respect of which he had expressed preference, in favour of other persons. Ranga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that he would limit his claim of inspection to such papers as have a direct bearing upon the decision of the Board not to allot any site to him or to allot the sites, in respect of which he had expressed preference, in favour of other persons. ( 5 ) NEITHER the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, nor the rules made thereunder governing the allotment of sites called the City of Bangalore Improvement (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1964, make any provision for inspection of papers of the Board. The matter therefore has to be examined on general principles. ( 6 ) THE most obvious starting point for investigation would be the principles stated or incorporated in Ss. 74 and 76 of the Evidence Act, although the Act may not of its own force apply to the Board or any statutory functions discharged by the Board. According to these sections, the right of inspection is given or must be regarded as having been given in respect of what are called 'public documents' to persons who have an interest governed or affected by the documents or contents of such documents. For our present purpose, it is enough to note that among public documents are enumerated documents which are described as forming the acts or records of the acts of official bodies. ( 7 ) THE first question therefore which was debated before us was whether the Board could at all be described as an official body. ( 8 ) THOUGH the matter war, seriously challenged on behalf of the board, which took up the position that it was functioning purely as a domestic body discharging a purely administrative function in the matter of allotment of sites, the contention that it cannot at all be regarded as an official body could not be sustained. The provisions of the City of Bangalore improvement Act make it perfectly clear that the Board is specially constituted under the statute for the purpose of carrying out improvement of the City of Bangalore and is vested with powers and authorities which can be clearly recognised as involving an aspect of Government's sovereign power The Bangalore City is governed by the Corporation Act and most items of work relating to municipal Government or administration are vested in the Corporation constituted under that Act. One of the functions of a municipal corporation exercised for the purpose of providing for healthy living by its citizens in comfortable surroundings is the regulation of building activity and the provision for sanitary and other amenities. One of the functions for which the Board is specially constituted is to control this activity in such a wav as to improve and beautify the citv. To the extent it is necessary for the due discharge of that function, the Board might be invested with certain of the powers of the municipal corporation Another power or authority conferred upon the Board is that of compulsory acquisition of land by the process provided under the Land Acquisition Act as modified bv certain of the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act There are special provisions contained in the latter Act declaring that a declaration made by the Board in respect of or in relation to acquisition under S. 18 of the Act should have the same forcp as a declaration made by the State Government under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and a further provision that in that regard the Board must be demeed to be a local authority. The Board further has under certain circumstances, the power to levy and collect what is called a betterment fee. ( 9 ) WHAT is stated above is sufficient to identify, among the functions of the Board, certain functions and powers which are clearly relatable to some sort of sovereign power which vests in the Government. Even otherwise, upon the mere dictionary meaning of 'office' and 'officer', it is clear that the Board must be regarded as an official body because it is a body exercising a public function under the State Government, to which certain powers and duties are attached by statute. ( 10 ) ON the first part of the proposition that the Board is an official body, there can be no doubt whatever, ( 11 ) THE next question is whether and if so, what interest or right the petitioner could make out to sustain his claim for inspection. ( 12 ) AS already stated, the approach must be through the principle enunciated in Ss. 74 and 76 of the Evidence Act. The right to inspection of a public document is limited to the interest a person has in it. ( 12 ) AS already stated, the approach must be through the principle enunciated in Ss. 74 and 76 of the Evidence Act. The right to inspection of a public document is limited to the interest a person has in it. Lord justice Lindley, dealing with this question, has stated as follows in the case of Mutter v. Eastern and Midlands Rly. , Co. , (1888) LR 38 Ch. D. 92 at page 106:"when the right to inspect and take a copy is expressly conferred by Statute, the limit of the right depends on the true construction of the Statute. When the right to inspect and take a copy is not expressly conferred, the extent of such right depends on the interest which the applicant has in what he wants to copy, and on what is reasonably necessary for the protection of such interest. The common law right to inspect and take copies of public documents is limited by this principle, as is shown by the judgment in Rex v. Justices of staffordshire ( (1837) 6 Ad. and E. 84, at 99 and 101 ). " ( 13 ) DEALING with this proposition, Justice Shephard, pronouncing the opinion of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court, has observed as follows in Queen Empress v. Arumugam, (1897) ILR 20 Mad 189 at page 196:"it may be inferred that the Legislature intended to recognise the right generally", (that is, the right to inspect public documents) "for all persons who can Show that they have an interest for the protection of which it is necessary that liberty to inspect such documents should be given. " ( 14 ) WE think that the proposition so stated should be accepted as correctly laying down the essential principle on the basis of which the right to inspect public documents may be claimed by any person. The foundation of that principle is that the document must be a public document, i. e. , it should form an act or the record of an act of a public body or official body and that the extent of the right of inspection must be determined by the nature of the right claimed by a person and the extent it is necessary for the protection of such right. ( 15 ) TAKING up the second matler first for consideration in this case, it was contended on behalf of the Board that the petitioner or person in the position of the petitioner could have no higher right than a mere right to make an application for allotment of sites, because he cannot insist that a particular site shall or should be allotted to him nor could he question the authority of the Board under Rule 15 that it may reject the allotment of all or any of the sites applied for by an applicant without assigining any reason. We cannot however, accept the contention that the 15th rule is totally destructive of everything that is sought to be governed or controlled by the rest of the rules. It is seen that the allotment or selection of an allottee is governed by various rules as to eligibility and preference. The preparation of lay-outs and allotment of sites, as already stated, are not to be regarded as an ordinary domestic function but a function directly bearing upon municipal Government. When therefore the board, exercising such a function, is required to act in accordance with the provisions of a statute and the rules thereunder, it follows that every member of the public who wishes to take advantage of the said activity of the Board is entitled to claim that the said activity aswell as his interest therein be governed by the strict observance. of the rules by the Board. Indeed, statutory bodies required to function in accordance with certain set of rules or the provisions of the principal statute itself are amenable to the jurisdiction of High Courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution only for the purpose of enforcing complete obedience of the rules and the law by statutory Boards, and the said power is exercised for the protection of the rights of persons who are likely to be affected by the functioning of statutory bodies. ( 16 ) WE are therefore of the opinion that the petitioner does have a right to have his application for allotment of site considered in accordance with the rules and that therefore he is entitled to complain if his interest is prejudically affected by non-observance or disobedience of the rules governing the allotment. ( 16 ) WE are therefore of the opinion that the petitioner does have a right to have his application for allotment of site considered in accordance with the rules and that therefore he is entitled to complain if his interest is prejudically affected by non-observance or disobedience of the rules governing the allotment. In that regard therefore, the petitioner has an interest and his right to inspect depends on the nature of his interest, and the extent to which it may be exercised is the extent necessary for the protection of his interest ( 17 ) TAKING up now the first part of the contention, viz. , that a public document is something which forms an act or the record of an act of an official body, the question for consideration is which documents answer such descripiton. ( 18 ) ON one point there is no difference of opinion, viz. , that the final order or decision of the Board in regard to allotment, whichever form it may take, may be regarded as a document forming the act of the Board or the record of its act. Mr. Ranga Rao, however, says that the word 'record' in this case must be taken to comprehend not merely the actual decision but every other matter taken on record on which the decision is based including, according to him, applications by other persons for allotment of sites. The second category of documents mentioned by Mr. Ranga Rao may not, in our opinion, come within the description of an act of the Board or the record of an act of the Board. Application is undoubtedly an act of a party and not of the Board. The fact that it may furnish material on which the Board conies to a decision does not and cannot convert it into a public document. A private document does not become a public document simply because it comes into the hands of a public body. ( 19 ) IT is argued by Mr. Ranga Rao that although such a view may be appropriate in the case of acts of judicial bodies and we may hold in their case that plaints and written statements cannot be called public documents, the same rule should not be applied to other bodies. The reason, according to Mr. ( 19 ) IT is argued by Mr. Ranga Rao that although such a view may be appropriate in the case of acts of judicial bodies and we may hold in their case that plaints and written statements cannot be called public documents, the same rule should not be applied to other bodies. The reason, according to Mr. Ranga Rao, is that in the case of judicial pronouncements there will be sufficient reference to pleadings and evidence followed by a reasoning before conclusions are stated. That, according to mr. Ranga Rao, is the reason why the Courts have held that written statements and plaints do not form public documents. ( 20 ) WE do not think that the reason stated by Mr. Ranga Rao supports his contention that the element which makes a document public document which is described above should be applied in the case of judicial bodies and not other bodies. The essence of the matter is that only the act of a public body is one which could not be kept away from the scrutiny of the public. If and to the extent it affects the interests of any person, he will be entitled to ask for copies thereof. ( 21 ) THE same principle, in our opinion, should be applied to acts of public bodies like the Board in this case. It is only the record of the decision of the Board which would be open to inspection. ( 22 ) THE decision of the Board may be in the form of a resolution; but the Rules indicate that before an allotment is made, the Board has to take into account and consider the recommendations of a Committee called the Allotment Committee. That Committee is a Committee of the board itself and not an independent body. Because the recommendations of the Committee are taken into account by the Board, the record of such recommendations should also be regarded as an act of the Board itself, forming part of the ultimate decision or as being the reason for the decision. ( 23 ) IN the matter of allotment of sites, we are of the opinion that what may be regarded as a public record of an act of the Board is the resolution of allotment ard the record of the recommendations of the allotment Committee on which the ultimate allotment resolved upon is based. ( 23 ) IN the matter of allotment of sites, we are of the opinion that what may be regarded as a public record of an act of the Board is the resolution of allotment ard the record of the recommendations of the allotment Committee on which the ultimate allotment resolved upon is based. ( 24 ) SO far as the petitioner is concerned, it has been argued that he would be entitled to inspect the resolution relating only to the allotment of the three sites mentioned by him. At first flush, it appears to be a reasonable argument. But if we closely scrutinise the matter, an application is not for allotment of any particular site. Any one of the sites in the lay-out may be allotted to an applicant. The fact that the petitioner is permitted to expreps his preference in respect of certain sites does not mean that his applicalion must be regarded as an application limited to a particular site. Indeed, Rule 13 of the Allotment Rules says that the site applied for or site in respect of which preference is indicated by the applicant or any other site may be allotted to him. ( 25 ) WE think therefore that the right of inspection extends to the resolution or resolutions of the Board together with the recommendations of the Committee relating to all the sites in the lay-out, for which applications were invited by Advertisement No. AD/ai. PR. 236/70-71 dt. 11-11-70. The petitioner is not entitled to inspect any other supporting documents like the applications, etc. Inspection, if claimed, is to be given within a reasonable time. ( 26 ) THE petitioner will also be entitled to a certified copy if he pays reasonable charges therefor. ( 27 ) WE make a declaration in the above terms and leave the parties to work out their rights accordingly. --- *** --- .