( 1 ) THE petitioners allege that they are the owners of about 3 acres in land survey Nos. 441 and 442 of Kempapura Agrahara, near Magadi Road Bangalore. It is their case that permission has been taken to convert the said land for non-agricultural purposes. It is their further case that they applied to the first respondent - The Bangalore City Improvement Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) for sanction of private layout on the aforesaid land. It is their further case that the prayer for sanction of the layout was granted by the Board by its resolution d/. 11th of Nov, 1970 under subject No. 297 subject to usual conditions, and that when certain modifications in the layout were proposed, the modified layout was sanctioned by the Board on the 8th of Dec, 1971, under Subject No. 557, copy of which is produced in the case as Ext 'a'. In pursuance of the said resolution the petitioners were informed by the Board by their letter dated the 20th of august, 1973 that the layout proposed by the petitioners has been sanctioned as modified by the Board subject to the petitioners satifyjng certain conditions imposed by them. One of the conditions imposed was that the petitioners should pay certain amount towards layout charges. It is the case of the petitioner that he tendered a cheque for Rs. 70,600 dated the 2nd of Oct, 1973. It is the further case of the petitioners that they had taken all necessary steps to comply with the conditions prescribed by the Board, and they are ready and willing to comply with the conditions subject to which the layout has been sanctioned. But on the 28th of March, 1974, the petitoners were informed by the Board that the Govt by their letter dated the 19th of Jan, 1974 has rejected the request of the petitioners for sanction of the private layout, and that therefore the layout charges is returned. The communication of the Board dated the 28th of March, 1974 has been produced in the case as Ext 'd'. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have challenged in this writ petition the communication of the Board dated 28th of March, 1974, which stated that the petitioners' prayer for sanction of private layout has been rejected. The communication of the Board dated the 28th of March, 1974 has been produced in the case as Ext 'd'. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have challenged in this writ petition the communication of the Board dated 28th of March, 1974, which stated that the petitioners' prayer for sanction of private layout has been rejected. They have further prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Board to give effect to its resolution sanctioning the layout and further for a direction to the Board to forbear from revoking the sanctioned layout plan. ( 3 ) THE Board has been constituted under the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act 1945 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). S. 25 is the relevant section pertaining to forming of new extension or layouts and for making new private streets. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Corporation of the City of Bangalore having concurred with the Board in the matter of sanctioning the layout in favour of the petitioner, the State Govt has no powers to interfere with the statutory powers of the Board in the matter of sanctioning the private layout. It was urged that the Board having passed final resolutions in favour of the petitioners sanctioning the layout subject to the petitioners satisfying certain conditions, the Corporotion of the City of Bangalore having agreed with the proposal of the Board, the Board was not at all justified in seeking the approval of the State Govt for its resolutions sanctioning the layout in favour of the petitioners. In support of these contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed relience on Section 25 of the Act. ( 4 ) SUB-SEC (1) of S. 25 provides that no person shall form or attempt to form any extension or layout for the purpose of constructing buildings thereon without the express sanction in writing of the Board and except in accordance with such conditions as the Board may specify. The first proviso to sub-sec (1) further provides that where the layout lies within the local limits of the Corporation, the Board shall not sanction the formation of layout without the concurrence of the Corporation. The first proviso to sub-sec (1) further provides that where the layout lies within the local limits of the Corporation, the Board shall not sanction the formation of layout without the concurrence of the Corporation. The Second proviso to sub-sec (1) states that where the Corporation and the Board do not agree, on the formation of or the conditions relating to the layout the matter shall be referred to the Govt whose decision thereon shall be final. Sub-sec (2) of S. 25 provides for the making of an application to the Board for sanction of a layout. Sub-sec (3) deals with the level with of strests and the height of buildings etc. Sub-sec (4) provides that the Board shall either sanction the formation cf the layout within six months, or ask for further information with respect to it. Sub-sac (5) empowers the Board to call upon the applicant to deposit, before sanctioning the application, necessary amount for meeting the] expenditure for making roads etc. Sub-sec (6) provides for the circumstances under which sanction may be refused. Sub-sec (7) provides that no person shall from layout or make any new private street without the sanction of or other wise than in conformity with the conditions imposed by the Board. It further provides that if the Board requires further information from the applicant no steps shall be taken by him to form the layout or make the street until orders have been passed by the board after the receipt of such information. The proviso to sub-sec (7) states that the passing of such orders shall not, in any case, be delayed for more than six months after the Board has received all the information which it considers necessary to enable it to deal finally with the said application. Sub-sec (8) provides that if the Board does not refuse sanction within six months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-sec (2), or from the date of receipt of all information asked for under sub-sec (7), such sanction shall be deemed to have been granted and the applicant may proceed to form the extension or layout or to make the street, but not so as to contravene any of the provisions of this Act and the rules or bye laws made under it. Sub-sec (9) provides that any personl who forms or attempts to from any extension or layout in contravention of the provisions of sub- sec (1), or makes any street without or otherwise than in conformity with the orders of the Board under this section, shall be liable, on conviction, to a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. ( 5 ) IT is clear from the scheme of S. 25 that the power of sanctioning the layout is statutorily vested in the Board. Where the extension or layout lias within the limits of the Corporation, the Board cannot santion the formation of the extension or layout without the concurrence of the Corporation. When there is difference of opinion between the Board and the corporation, the matter has to be referred to the Govt, whose decision thereon shall be final. It is therefore finally the State Govt comes into picture only if the private layout lies within the limits of the Corporation, and only when there is divergence of opinion between the Board and the Corporation. Except for this limited power which the State Govt can exercise there is no other provision in the Act entitling the State Govt to interfere with the powers of the Board in the matter of sanctioning layouts etc. This is not a case where there is divergence of opinion between the Corporation and the Board. The petitioners have expressly stated in para 2 of the petition that the Corporation has concurred with the proposal of the Board to sanction the layqut in favour of the petitioners. That statement remains uncontroverted. That being the position, there was no occasion for the board to seek the approval of the State Govt for its decision to sanction the layout in favour of the petitioners. In the return submitted on behalf of the Board it is stated in para 4 that the Board addressed a letter on the 22nd of Nov, 1973, requesting the Govt to accord approval to the resolution of the Board approving the private layout of the petitioners. It further stated that the State Govt has rejected the sanction of the private layout in favour of the petitioners as per resolution dated the 19th of Jan, 1974. It further stated that the State Govt has rejected the sanction of the private layout in favour of the petitioners as per resolution dated the 19th of Jan, 1974. The procedure followed by the Board in seeking the approval of the state Govt to its decision to sanction the private layout in favour of the petitioners virtually amounts to abrogating its statutory functions in favour of the State Govt. The State Govt, which could not interfere with the sanctioning of the layout by the Board, has illegally usurped the power of the Board and rejected the layout sanctioned by the Board. The action of the State Government is clearly without competence. ( 6 ) AS the Board had passed necessary resolutions sanctioning the layout in favour of the petitioners subject to the petitioners fulfilling certain conditions, all further proceedings in the matter such as the Board seeking the approval of the State Govt, the State Govt rejecting the approval, and the communication of the Board to the petitioners stating that the layout has been rejected, must all be regarded as nonest as all these proceedings are clearly against the express provisions of the Act. ( 7 ) IT is, however, necessary to advert to the stand taken on behalf at the Board and the State Govt that the State Govt has powers under S. 42 of the Act to regulate the matter pertaining to sanction of private layouts. Though in para 5a of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the board the provision referred to is S. 45 of the Act, it was explained during course of the arguments that it refers to S. 42 of the Act. The only provision on which reliance was placed entitling the State Govt to interfere in the grant of private layouts is S. 42 of the Act. S. 42 of the Act provides that the Govt may from time to time, make rules, not inconsistent with the Act, for the guidance of the Board, the Corporation, Govt Officers and all other persons in matters connected with the administration of this Act or in cases not expressly provided for therein, and in regard to other matters. S. 42 of the Act provides that the Govt may from time to time, make rules, not inconsistent with the Act, for the guidance of the Board, the Corporation, Govt Officers and all other persons in matters connected with the administration of this Act or in cases not expressly provided for therein, and in regard to other matters. It is the case of the Board and the Govt that it is in exercise of the powers conferred by Cl (a) of S. 42 that the State Govt has issued certain guidance in the matter of sanctioning private layouts, and that the rejection of the patitioners' prayer for a private layout is in accordance with the said guide lines. A copy of the guide lines was placed for my perusal. The guide lines no doubt bear on the question of the sanctioning a private layout by the Board. The same have been issued by the State Govt. But it has to be remembered that what Sec. 42 empowers the State Govt is to make rules for the guidance of the Board etc. , in regard to the makers specified therein. What is now depended upon is not the rules framed under S. 42 (a) of the Act, but certain guidelines issued by the State Govt. The document relied upon by the State govt and the Board is expressly described as guide lines and not as rules. Sri Chandrakantaraj Urs, learned Govt Advocate had to agree that the state Govt has not purported to exercise its rule making power under s. 42 (a) of the Act when it issued the guidelines. Even otherwise it is quite clear that the Govt has not to exercise its rule making powers under s. 42a of the Act. It is not the case of the respondents that these guidelines were published in the Gazette as the rules framed under any Act are published. I have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that the guidelines, on the basis of which the impugned action has been taken, have no status of the rules framed under S. 42 of the Act. The Board is only under an obligation to be guided by the rules framed under S. 42 and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Board is only under an obligation to be guided by the rules framed under S. 42 and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Hence it is obvious that the guidelines not having the force of rules framed under the Act were not required to be obeyed by the Board. Hence the impugned action cannot be justified on the basis of the guidelines issued by the State Govt. In these circumstances it is unnecessary for me to go into the further question whether the guidelinse framed fay the State Govt are consistent with the provisions of the Act. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is allowed and the order of the Board dated the 28th of March, 1974 produced in the case as ext 'd' and the order of the Govt communicated under letter No. HMA 145 MNG 73 dated the 19th of Jan, 1974 are declared as illegal and invalid. A Writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the first respondent to forbear from giving effect to the order of the State Govt dated the 19th jan, 1974 and its own order dated the 28th of March, 1974. No costs. --- *** --- .