N. D. VENKATESH, J. ( 1 ) TWO reliefs are claimed in this petition. A writ of certiorari quashing the order Annexure-F dated 10-10-1984 of the State Government in the Housing and Urban development Department and secondly, a writ of mandamus for a direction to the State Government (1st respondent) to consider the petitioner's claim for allotment to it of the vacant land mentioned in the petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Housing Cooperative Society formed under the karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, having its head quarters at Hubli. It claims a membership of more than 1000 persons, all government employees, and is said to have been formed with the object of providing house sites to them who, according to the society, are persons belonging to the weaker sections, being members of low income group. ( 3 ) A vast extent of urban land including Sy. Nos. 43/1 and 43/2 of village lakmanahalli, 28/2, 82/1, 84/2 and 24 of village Krishnapur and Sy. No. 157/1+2/1 of village Ayodhya lying within the urban agglomeration of Hubli-Dharwar came to be acquired by the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the act ). ( 4 ) UNLESS the State Government retains or reserves to itself, exercising its powers under sub-section (5) of Section 23 of the Act, the lands acquired by it under the Act, the same has to be disposed of in accordance with the other sub-sections of that provision. ( 5 ) SINCE the lands acquired as aforesaid were available for allotment, several persons, including the petitioner- society, applied for portions out of this area. The petitioner claimed that it wanted sufficient extent of vacant lard to form house sites so as to allot the same to its members and therefore the land it had claimed be granted to it. ( 6 ) NOT conceding this claim but alloting portions of this area in favour of the Improvement Board, Hubli, the state Government has issued the order at Annexure-F. ( 7 ) AS stated above, challenging that order this petition is filed. ( 8 ) IN order to advice it in the matter of allotment of lands acquired under the act, the State Government has constituted committees, both at the District level and State level. ( 8 ) IN order to advice it in the matter of allotment of lands acquired under the act, the State Government has constituted committees, both at the District level and State level. At the relevant time, the applications filed-for allotment of vacant urban land had to be first processed by the district Level Committee and the same had to be forwarded to the State Government through the State Level Committee. At that stage the State Level Committee could have offered its own views in the matter. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the District Level Committee had recommended for allotment of some lands in favour of the petitioner. But the State Level Committee did not agree with this recommendation being of opinion "that the excess urban vacant land should not be allotted to the private organisations". Accepting this recommendation of the State Level Committee and also taking note of a letter addressed to it (the State Government) in the matter by the Chairman, Improvement Board, hubli the Government issued Annexure-F. Annexure-F reads thus : "proceedings of the Government of Karnataka. Sub :-Allotment of lands acquired under Urban Land (C and R) Act, 1976 in Hubli Dharwad Agglomeration in favour of Improvement board, Hubli. Read :-Letter No. TP. AB. III/tpl/2-14/ 8-85, letter No. IBH/ulc/84- dated 8-8-1984 from the Chairman, Improvement Board, Hubli. Letter No. TP/ad/iii/tpl/2. 14/ 84-85 dt. 20-8-1984. Preamble :"in the letter read at (1) above the director of Town Planning have sent proceedings of the State Level Urban land Committee held on 28-4-1984. In the said proceedings the State level Urban Land Committee has taken a decision not to allot the vacant lands in Sy. No. 43/1, and 43/2 of lakmanahalli, 28/2 of Krishnapur, 82/1, and 84/2 of Krishnapur and Sy. No. 24 of Krishnapur, Hubli in favour of Private agencies as recommended by the District Level Urban Land Committee, Dharwad as a matter of policy. In the matter read at (2) above, the chairman, Improvement Board, Hubli has requested Government to allot the said lands in favour of Improvement board, Hubli as the Government have taken decision not to allot these lands to private agencies. The Director of Town Planning in his letter read at (3) above has recommended for allotment of said lands in favour of Improvement Board, Hubli. Order No. HUD. 22!) ULC 84 Bangalore dt. 10-10-84. The Director of Town Planning in his letter read at (3) above has recommended for allotment of said lands in favour of Improvement Board, Hubli. Order No. HUD. 22!) ULC 84 Bangalore dt. 10-10-84. Government of Karnataka hereby accord sanction for allotment of lands measuring 49663 Sq. Mtrs , in Sy. No. 43/1 and 43/2 Lakmanahalli, 12342. 00 sq. Mtrs. in Sy. No. 28/2 of Krishnapur Hubli, 14841. 25 Sq. Mtrs in Sy. No 82/1 of Krishnapur, 283327 00 Sq. Mtrs in Sy. No. 84/2 Krishnapur Hubli in favour of Improvement Board, hubli at zonal rates subject to condition that the said lands should be utilised for residential purposes within a period of three years. By Order and in the name of the governor of Karnataka sd/- (V. Santhanakrishna) under Secretary to Govt. , housing and Urban Development department. " ( 9 ) A reading of Annexure-F shows that in rejecting the petitioner's claim, the State Government purports to rely on a policy it (the State Government) is said to have laid down for its own guidance in the matter of allotment of vacant lands acquired under the Act. This fact is clearly spelled out by a reference it approvingly makes at Annexure-F to the recommendations of the state Level Committee and also to the letter of the Chairman, Improvement board, Hubli, wherein he has referred to the policy of the State Government in the matter. ( 10 ) IT may also be noted that even though che petitioner has spectfically averred in its petition (at para-2) that the government could not have fettered its discretion in the matter of allotment of lands by formulatirg and policy as above and even though it has further averred (at the very para) that "having regard to the object and purposes of the Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 such a policy decision goes against the very object and purpose of the Act and it would be ultravires of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act", no statement of objections have been filed by the State Government (respondent No. 1) either justifying such a policy, if any, furnishing reasons thereof or denying those averments found in the petition. In the course of his arguments also the learned Government pleader did not controvert the averments made on behalf of the petitioner that the government had not taken into consideration its request for allotment of lands and had ignored the same without even examining the merits of the claim mainly relying on a policy it is said to have laid down in the matter for its guidance. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances of the case, i have to proceed on the assumption that the Government had taken a sort of a policy decision not to allot urban vacant lands acquired by it under the Act to any individuals or private organisations till the needs of all Government or Quasi goverrment organisations are fulfilled. The State Level Committee at its sitting/ sittings held in April, 1984 had taken up for consideration not merely the recommendations of the Hubli-Dharwar District level Committee but also of the district Level Urban Land Committee of belgaum District and perhaps of one or two other Districts. While dealing with the claims of Belgaum area the committee makes reference to the views expressed by the Secretary to the Government of Karnataka in the Housing and Urban development Department that "it was not the present policy of the Government -to allot to private organisations before the needs of all Government/quasi Government organisations are fulfilled. " the State Level Commitiee after referring to the views of the Secretary, as aforesaid, has further stated in its recommendation pertaining to the claims arising in the Belgaum area thus:"the committee felt that it has already taken a decision based on the priority fixed and the policy. Any deviation from its policy would give scope for creating a wrong precedence and it becomes difficult for the Committee to reject the cases of similar societies not only in Belgaum but also in the cities like Bangalore, Mangalore, hubli and Dharwar etc. "a cyclostyled copy of the recommendations of the State Level Committee are found in the records of the State Government, made available to me by the learned High Court Government Pleader. In the circumstances of the case, it is fair to assume that the State Government proceeded, while issuing Annexure-F, on the basis of some such policy referred to above. "a cyclostyled copy of the recommendations of the State Level Committee are found in the records of the State Government, made available to me by the learned High Court Government Pleader. In the circumstances of the case, it is fair to assume that the State Government proceeded, while issuing Annexure-F, on the basis of some such policy referred to above. ( 12 ) IT was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Annexure- f was bad for reasons that it is not a speaking order; that it should not have been based on the recommendations of the State Level Committee, which committee by the time it made that recommendation was not empowered to make any such recommendation; and that the Government could not have ignored his client's claim for allotment of land, Without even considering it on the ground that it had taken a policy decision earlier not to consider the claims of "private organisations, and persons through in law it could not have thus fettered its discretion in the matter of allotment of urban vacant land acquired by it under the Act, laying down a policy of that nature. ( 13 ) ON the other hand, the learned government Pleader, representing the stale, and the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent, the Improvement board, Hubli City, supported the impugned order and argued that there was no reason to interfere with the same. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent drew my attention to the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Improvement boards Act, 1976, under which the Hubli city Improvement Board has been constituted, and submitted that the said Board had been established with the sole purpose of developing the urban area by formulating development schemes, formation of house sites, construction of buildings and allotment of sites and buildings to private parties including members of weaker sections and that in the circumstances, the land allotted to his client would certainly sub-serve the common good envisaged in sub-section (4) of Section 23 of the Act and therefore the allotment made in favour of his client, as per Annexure-F does not at all call for any interference. In reply to this last submission of the counsel for the 2nd respondent, it was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that his main grievance in the instant case is that the state Government have committed a grave error in completely ignoring his client's claim, without even taking the same into consideration, solely on the ground that it had earlier laid down a policy to ignore all such claims made by private organisations till the needs of the government and Quasi Government bodies are satisfied. He says that any such policy that the Government may have laid down being contrary to the spirit of the Act or the policy underlying the relevant provisions of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be stated so. ( 14 ) THE only substantial question that arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the State Government, in the matter of disposal of urban vacant land acquired by it under the Act could have for its guidance laid down a policy of the nature referred to above and refused to look into the claims of persons like the petitioner ? ( 15 ) WHILE examining this question we have to keep in mind the policy underlying the Act and the policy or guidelines, if any, spelled out in the relevant provis?ons of the Act that enable the State Government to dispose of the lands acquired by it thereunder. ( 16 ) AS observed by the Supreme court in Union of India etc. v Valluri basawaiah Choudhary and others, etc. ( AIR 1979 SC 1415 ) at page 1417 :"the primary object and the purpose of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976 as the long title and the preamble show is to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations, for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling limit, to regulate the construction of buildings on such land and for matters connected therewith, with a view to preventing the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persors and speculation and profiteering therein, and with a view to bring about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good, in furtherance of the Directive Principles of Article 39 (b) and (c ). " ( 17 ) AS provided in Section 3 of the act that except as otherwise provided in the Act "on and from the commencement of the Act no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit in the territories to which the Act applies," ( 18 ) THE petitioner and persons similarly placed who require any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit for any purpose whatsoever can obtain the same only from the State Government and in examining such claims the State Government has to be guided by what is laid down in Section 23 of the Act. Section 23 of the Act reads thus :"23 (1 ). It shall be competent for the State Government to allot, by order, in excess of the ceiling limit and vacant land which is deemed to have been acquired by the State Government under this Act or is acquired by the state Government under any other law, to any person for any purpose relating to, or in connection with, any industry or for providing residential accommodation of such type as may be approved by the State Government to the employees of any industry and it shall be lawful for such person to hold such land in excess of the ceiling limit. Explanation-For the purposes of this section,- (a) where any land with a building has been acquired by the State Government under any other law and such building has been subsequently demolished by the State Government, then, such land shall be deemed to be vacant land acquired under such other law; (b) "industry" means any business, profession, trade, undertaking or manufacture. (2) In making an order of allotment under sub-section (1), the State Government may impose such conditions as may be specified there n including a condition as to the period within which the industry shall be put in operation or, as the case may be, the residential accommodation shall be provided for : provides that if, on a representation made in this behalf by the allottee, the state Government is satisfied that the allottee could not put the industry in operation, or provide the residential accommodation, within the period specified in the order of allotment, for any good and sufficient reason, the state Government may extend such period to such further period or periods as it may deem fit. (3) Where any condition imposed in an order of allotment is not complied with by the allottee, the State government shall, after giving an opportunity to the allottee to be heard in the matter, cancel the allotment with effect from the date of the non- compliance of such condition and the land allotted shall vest in the State government free from all encumbrances. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), all vacant lands deemed to have been acquired by the State Government under this act shall be disposed of by the State government to subserve the common good on such terms and conditions as the State Government may deem fit to impose. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) to (4), where the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary to retain or reserve any vacant land, deemed to have been acquired by that Go\ernment under this Act, for the benefit of the public, it shall be competent for the State government to retain or reserve such land for the same. " ( 19 ) SUB-SECTIONS (1), (2) and (3) of section 23 contain guidelines co be followed by the State Government in the matter of allotment by it of urban vacant land either acquired under the Act or under any other law in force to any person for purposes relating to or in connection with any industry or for providing residential accommodation to the employees of any such industry. The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that his client's claim does not fall within the scope of these provisions. His case is that hii client's claim has to be dealt with by the State Government in accordance with the guidelines contained in sub-section (4) thereof. A careful reading of sub-section (4) goes to show that unless the State Government decides to retain or reserve any vacant land acquired under the Act for the berefit of the public as provided in sub-section (5) it should dispose of the same to observe the common good. ( 20 ) IN this case the land allotted to the Improvement Board may be properly utilised by it in connection with its legitimate activities. ( 20 ) IN this case the land allotted to the Improvement Board may be properly utilised by it in connection with its legitimate activities. But, as already stated, in the process of making that allotment could the State Government have, without taking into consideration at all, ignored the claim of the petitioner relying as it purports to have done on a policy not to consider at all the requests of private individuals and bodies till its (State Government's) needs and the needs of Quasi Government bodies are satisfied ? ( 21 ) I am not prepared to say that in administering a law the State Government cannot for its guidance lay down any policy at all. But, the policy it lays down should not go contrary to the spirit of that law or the policy underlying that law. Even if the policy laid down by the authority administering the Act can be said to be in consonance with the spirit of that law, the same cannot be vague or so rigid as to completely fetter the discretionary power conferred on that statutory authority by the Act itself. As observed by the learned author of de smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action, IV Edition, at page 317 "a public authority cannot effectively bind itself not to exercise the discretion if to do so would be to disable itself from fulfilling the primary purposes for which it was created. " ( 22 ) IN the instant case, if the State government had considered the claims of all who had applied for lands and after examining the relative merit of each, had preferred the Improvement board that, perhaps, could not have been questioned on the grounds urged in the petition. But the main complaint of the petitioner is that its claim was not taken into consideration at all and has been simply ignored stating that unless the needs of the Government/quasi Government bodies like the Improvement Board are satisfied, the claims of other private bodies should not at all be taken into consideration. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid policy decision of the Government is contrary to the spirit of the Act has a considerable force. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid policy decision of the Government is contrary to the spirit of the Act has a considerable force. ( 23 ) NOW, as already stated, no person or institution in need of urban vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit can acquire the same except through the government. Apart from industrial concerns there are various other private bodies like the petitioner society who may require, for their legitimate purposes, urban vacant land in excess of the ceiling area. Where should they go, if the Government, the sole repository of such lands, refuses to examine their claims at all on the ground aforesaid ? private agencies may require lands to build hospitals or schools, to form layouts in order to distribute the same to its members and for many other like purposes which it is impossible to envisage. To say that none of your claims would be considered now till my need and the needs of the statutory bodies I have created are fully satisfied may cause great hardship to such persons and some of them may have to close down their establishments. By rigidly formulating a policy of the type referred to above the state Government cannot completely throttle its discretion and in the process put a stop, may be for a period, a period so vaguely conceived by it that it may be a day, a ytar or even a couple of years, to all legitimate activities of privat persons and bodies. The country's mixed economic policy allows enough freedom for private initiative and enterprise. The state Government has not taken over, and certainly cannot take over in the near future, the stupendous task of providing houses to all who are in need in this country. Private initiative and private investments on a considerable scale in various fields is certainly allowed. ( 24 ) SUB-SECTION (4) of Sec. 23 of the act mandates that the State Government, if it does not retain as provided under sub-section (5) thereof of the urban vacant land acquired by it under the Act shall dispose of the same "to subserve the common good. " In the context of what has been stated immediately above this term "to subserve the common good" appearing in sub-section (4) has some significance. " In the context of what has been stated immediately above this term "to subserve the common good" appearing in sub-section (4) has some significance. A rigid policy of the nature referred to above, if it is at all being pursued by the State Government will not in any view serve any common good. "common good" will be served only if the State Government, after taking into consideration the claims put forward by all concerned and, examining the relative merits of each, allots the land it has acquired under the Act to the most deserving u ing its discretion fairly and properly. The term "commongood" means the interest of the community at large (see Chamber s Twentieth Century dictionary ). The authority administering the law shall have to go by the spirit of that law. It will not serve "common good" if it escapes that responsibility by taking shelter under a rigid policy of the above nature and shuts out the claims of private bodies and individuals. This will also amount to a failure on the part of the State Government to exercise a discretion that has vested in it under law. My answer to the question formulated above is that the State Government cannot lay down a policy of the nature referred to above for its guidance in acting under Section 23 (4) of the Act. ( 25 ) TO enable the State Government to consider afresh the claims made for allotment of land out of the vacant lands referred to above, Annexure-F has to be quashed. ( 26 ) THEREFORE, for reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The rule issued is made absolute. Anrexure-F is hereby quashed. The matter involved is remitted to the 1st respondent for a fresh disposal according to law and in the light of the observations made above. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .