BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) BY consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, arguments were heard and the following order passed. ( 2 ) THE short point for consideration is whether the Belgaum Urban Development authority, Belgaum is justified in defying the order passed by the State of Karnataka under Annexure-D wherein a direction was issued by the State of Karnataka to the 2nd respondent to give up the open space as well as the dead-end of the road. ( 3 ) THE undisputed fact is that the State government took a decision on the representations made by the petitioners on 9-3-1987 and 5-9-1988. , aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 19-8-1987 calling upon the petitioner to hand over the area covered by the dead-end of the road along with the open space to the corporation. In spite of the decision taken and direction issued by the State Government to the 2nd respondent to give up the open space as well as the dead-end road in question, the 2nd respondent has not implemented the direction. ( 4 ) APART from the propriety of resisting the direction issued by the State Government, the question for consideration is whether the 2nd respondent is empowered statutorily to act independently of any direction that may be issued by the State Government in this behalf. ( 5 ) IN the Act there is no statutory provision at all investing the 2nd respondent with unfettered discretion and power to take its own decision in a matter of this nature. My attention has also been drawn to a decision in State of Kamataka v Kumareshwar sahakari Gruha Nirman Abivridhi Shangha ltd. and another, 1987 (2) B. L. J. 509, wherein this court has taken the view that the Special deputy Commissioner being a subordinate officer of the State Government, has certain implied disabilities flowing out of his subordination to the State Government and is not empowered to nullify what the State government permitted and he cannot resist the power himself contrary to the assumptions of the State Government. ( 6 ) THERE can be no doubt about the fact that the 2nd respondent is an authority subordinate to the State Government, inasmuch as, he is the Commissioner of the belgaum Urban Development Authority. It is an instance of 'the tail wagging the dog'. ( 6 ) THERE can be no doubt about the fact that the 2nd respondent is an authority subordinate to the State Government, inasmuch as, he is the Commissioner of the belgaum Urban Development Authority. It is an instance of 'the tail wagging the dog'. In other words, the Commissioner cannot arrogate to himself the powers which are not conferred upon him by the Statute and is bound by the direction issued by the State government. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order under Annexure-E. I direct the second respondent to implement the order passed by the State government under Annexure-D dated 13-12-1988 within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Copy of this order shall be communicated to the 2nd respondent. ( 8 ) LEARNED Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance for the respondents within two weeks from to-day. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .