Judgment SARWAR ALI, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner prays that the respondents be directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioner from middle income group house No. 114 situated in Lohianagar in the town of Patna. This house, the petitioner claims, has been taken possession of by him in pursuance of a letter issued on 19-11-1981 from the office of the Estate Officer of the Bihar State Housing Board (the "Board") addressed to the Executive Engineer of the Board, Patna Division directing him to deliver possession of the house to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner"s case is that he is a social worker. The then Chief Minister Dr. Jagannath Mishra recommended that allotment be made in favour of the petitioner. The Board had already decided to reserve three per cent of the total number of houses to be allotted on special recommendation by the Government. The Board, therefore, agreed to allot M. G. I. H. House No. 114 of Lohianagar to the petitioner. An agreement of hire purchase was executed between the petitioner and the Estate Officer of the Board on 17-11-1981 (Annexure 2). Thereafter a letter dt. 19-11-1981 (annexure 3) was issued directing the delivery of possession of the house in question to the petitioner. There was some dispute in relation to actual taking of possession by the petitioner. But ultimately the petitioner started living in the house after it was made vacant on 29-9-1982. On 2-10-1982 a police force headed by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police came to the petitioner and asked him to vacate the house. The petitioner told the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police that he is the legal owner of the house. There was thus no question of his vacation of the premises. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of police informed the petitioner that he had been directed by the Administration and the Housing Board to see that no one takes possession of the house. The petitioner, therefore, as a law abiding citizen locked the house and left the house keeping the keys with him. Since many persons are approaching the Board for the allotment of the house it has become necessary to file a writ application for the purpose aforesaid. 3. At the time of admission one Sardar Mohan Singh intervened. He has been added as respondent 7. Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Board as also the added respondent. Since many persons are approaching the Board for the allotment of the house it has become necessary to file a writ application for the purpose aforesaid. 3. At the time of admission one Sardar Mohan Singh intervened. He has been added as respondent 7. Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Board as also the added respondent. Respondent 7 has himself filed a separate writ application in which he seeks a mandamus directing the allotment of the house in question to him. Since I propose to deal with that case separately, it is not necessary to refer to his counter-affidavit, particularly in the view that I am taking in this case. Counter-affidavits have also been filed on behalf of the State. 4. In the first counter-affidavit it has been stated that the life of the Board expired on 23-10-1981. Although there was extension of the life of the Board till 31-12-1982, the Board did not have powers to allot land or house during that period. Moreover, the State Government exercising its power under S.23, Bihar Housing Board Ordinance, 1981, has cancelled and set aside all the allotments made by the Board in respect of plots and houses made on or before 24-10-1981. This cancellation, it is stated, has been made because of the illegalities and irregularities committed by the Board. The affidavit states that these have been explained in the counter-affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 3272 of 1983 to which reference shall be made at the time of hearing and a copy whereof has been served on the counsel of the petitioner and enclosed with the counter-affidavit. In the said counter-affidavit of C.W.J.C. 3272 of 1983 it has been explained that large number of applications were received by the Board in pursuance to the advertisement made by the Board. The petitioner was also one of the applicants. A meeting of the Board was held on 16-5-1981. One of the items in the agenda was allotment of 354 plots at Bahadurpur. In the meeting it was resolved that the list of applicants be examined by a sub-committee consisting of three members, namely, Sri Nand Kishore Prasad (non official member), Sri M. P. Sinha, Special Secretary Finance Department and Sri Niranjan Rai Chief Engineer. One of the agenda for the meeting of the Board held on 15-7-1981 was the consideration of the report of the sub-committee. One of the agenda for the meeting of the Board held on 15-7-1981 was the consideration of the report of the sub-committee. On that date the Board resolved that since the report of the subcommittee was not on the record along with the agenda, the report of the subcommittee "be obtained duly signed by all the members of the sub-committee within a day and thereafter allotment be made as per recommendation of the allotment subcommittee and allotment orders be issued". Although there was no report of the sub-committee duly signed by all the members, yet contrary to the resolution of the Board allotment orders were issued to the petitioner. It is further stated that the original file containing allotment is missing. The records available in the office only show that the allotments were made on the respective dates as indicated in the counter-affidavit. Thus, in short it is stated that there was no allotment in accordance with law and in pursuance of the decision taken by the Board. The second counter-affidavit also emphasised that since the allotments made after 24-10-1981, have been cancelled, the petitioner cannot claim that he is entitled to possession of the house in question. It is also stated that the Housing Board has in pursuance of the notification of the State Government notified cancellation of such allotments by publishing it in the newspaper, photostat copy whereof is annexed as annexure A. 5. The said counter-affidavit also states that the allotment made by the Board on or after 24-10-1981 have been cancelled in exercise of the power under S.23 of the Act and as such no rights can accrue on the basis of allotment made on or after the aforesaid date. 6. The contention of the petitioner that allotment had been made to him out of the quota reserved for allotment on special recommendation of the State Govt. cannot be accepted. Reliance was placed on annexure 1. This document is a buffsheet d/-24-7-1981 addressed to the Chairman of the Board in which it has been stated that the case of the petitioner may be considered for allotment out of the Government quota. A mere buffsheef by a Minister or Chief Minister cannot be deemed to be a Government decision that the allotment be made out of Government quota. A mere buffsheef by a Minister or Chief Minister cannot be deemed to be a Government decision that the allotment be made out of Government quota. No communication addressed by a duly authorised person containing any Government decision in that regard has been brought on the record. The first contention, therefore, cannot be accepted. 7. It is not in dispute that the Government has in exercise of power under S.23, Bihar Housing Board Ordinance, issued a notification cancelling all the allotments made on or after 24-10-1981. The order of the State Government is not directly under challenge in this writ application. If the petitioner wanted to challenge the Government notification, he had to amend his petition and the prayer made therein and then alone the Board and the State Government would have been called upon to justify the action taken. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to his reply to the counter-affidavit filed by the intervener in which it is stated in para 7 that even if orders or directions have been issued by the State Government or the Board, those are illegal and liable to be quashed. But, as already stated, there has to be specific challenge to the action of the Government by amendment of the writ application. In the absence of the same it cannot be said that the Government order is under challenge in this writ application. It is obvious that unless the Government notification aforesaid is quashed by this Court the petitioner cannot claim any right on the basis of allotment, if any, and agreement executed on 17-11-1981. 9. But that apart, it is clear from the averments made in the annexure to the first counter-affidavit of the Board that the resolution of the Board in the meeting held on 15-7-1981 was that it was only on the basis of the report of the sub-committee which had been duly signed by all the members that the allotment could be made. In fact, the report of the subcommittee did not contain the signature of all the members. The officers of the Board, therefore, had no authority or legal right to make allotment on the basis of the report of the sub-committee which was signed only by some of the members. The execution of hire-purchase agreement was in the circumstance an invalid act of the officers of the Board. The officers of the Board, therefore, had no authority or legal right to make allotment on the basis of the report of the sub-committee which was signed only by some of the members. The execution of hire-purchase agreement was in the circumstance an invalid act of the officers of the Board. The Board cannot be bound by such illegal action of its officers. No right, therefore, accrued to the petitioner on the basis of the hire purchase agreement. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed, but without costs. S.H.S.ABIDI, J. 11 I agree.