BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against resolution No. 383 passed on 23-7-1984 by the Bangalore development authority ('the b. d. a. ' for short) making a bulk allotment of an extent of 25 acres of land in sy. Nos. 15 to 29, 31, 53 to 55 and 130 to respondent-4-the telecom employees' co-operative housing society limited ('the society' for short) and for quashing of letter dated 20-12-1984 addressed by the b. d. a. to the president of the society calling upon the society to remit the cost of the aforesaid 25 acres of land amounting to Rs. 31,25,000/- for taking further action in the matter of handing over the land in question to the society. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has also sought for a mandamus to the b. d. a. to notify the said lands for purpose of allotment to the public at large including the members of the class of persons falling within the purview of the petitioner-society and for disposal of the sites by allotment in accordance with the Provisions of the Bangalore development authority (allotment of sites) rules, 1982 ('the rules' for short ). ( 3 ) THE petitioner is stated to be a society registered under the Karnataka societies Registration Act. The aims and objects of the society are stated to be to take such measures for the development of the classes of people mentioned in the name of the organisation and to make such endeavours and efforts to safeguard the interest of the class of persons referred to in the name of the association and such other activities aimed at the development of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, minorities and backward classes in karnataka. The petitioner-society has its head office in kasturbanagar and its activity consists of safeguarding the rights of persons of the said class and to ensure that statutory authorities and other authorities do implement the Provisions for the purpose of benefiting the classes of persons aforementioned. ( 4 ) THE b. d. a. formulated a scheme called jagajivanram nagar layout in 1978. the scheme was submitted by the b. d. a. by its letter dated 30-1-1980 to the state government for its approval and approval was accorded by an order of the state government dated 9-6-1980. According to the government Order, a new layout was sanctioned and it was named as ambedkar nagar. the scheme was submitted by the b. d. a. by its letter dated 30-1-1980 to the state government for its approval and approval was accorded by an order of the state government dated 9-6-1980. According to the government Order, a new layout was sanctioned and it was named as ambedkar nagar. The layout of ambedkar nagar consisted of 1965 residential sites comprising different sizes measuring 30'x 40', 40' x 60' and 40' x 70'. 1513 sites are of 30' x 40' each, which were intended for the benefit of economically weaker sections of the society. It is stated that according to Rule 11 (4) of the rules, 18% of the sites has to be reserved for purposes of allotment to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as well as to the wandering tribes and other kinds of tribes. 18% of 1965 sites comprises 350 sites. According to the Rule, it is stated that there are other classes of persons also for the purpose of allotment. Except for educational institutions established for the purpose of running schools, there is no institution or individual who could be allotted sites, according to the petitioner. The Provisions of the statute and the rules do not recognise any person or class of persons who have joined together for the purpose of allotment of residential sites, according to the petitioner and that respondent-4-society is not eligible for the benefit of allotment and no allotment could be made to any housing society. It is slated by the petitioner that the bulk allotment to any society or any other similar person is not recognised under the statute and the rules made thereunder and if such an allotment is made, it would be violative of the Provisions of the Bangalore development authority act and the rules. According to the government order dated 9-6-1980, a copy of which is annexure-a, the scheme was approved and thereafter followed, the final notification dated 27-12-1980 published in Karnataka gazette dated 29-12-1980 a copy of which is annexure-b. Under annexures 'a' and 'b', it is apparent that several survey numbers were acquired besides sy. Nos. 15 to 29, 31, 53 to 55 and 130. Nos. 15 to 29, 31, 53 to 55 and 130. It appears that the members of the petitioner society waited for the publication of the notification for purpose of allotment and it came as a shock to them when they found that a portion of the area stated above was sought to be dealt in a manner not known to law. On enquiry made by the petitioner, it was revealed that the b. d. a. had passed the impugned resolution for bulk allotment in a single block of a large chunk of land to respondent No. 4 and in pursuance of the said resolution the b. d. a. had issued a letter to rcspondent-4 dated 20-12-1984 communicating the allotment and calling upon respondent-4 for payment of the consideration for allotment. It is said that rcspondent-4 is trying to enter upon the property for the purpose of forming a layout of its own and rcspondent-4 being allowed to allot the sites to its members contrary to the rules of allotment made under the statute. It is also pointed out that neither in Annexure-C nor in Annexure-D any restriction is placed on respondent No. 4 to maintain the percentage of allotment as required under Rule 11 of the rules and, therefore, the allotment is in contravention of the mandatory Provisions of the statute. According to the petitioner, there is no provision for bulk allotment to any person whether it is a statutory body or a local body or a body constituted under the Provisions of a statute like a co-operative society and, therefore, the resolution of the b. d. a. in making the bulk allotment to rcspondent-4 is devoid of jurisdiction and, therefore, void and inoperative. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the bulk allotment became known to the petitioner only about two weeks prior to the institution of this writ petition when certain activities of respondent No. 4 were noticed and enquiries made there upon by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner could not approach this court earlier. It is further stated that the petitioner society is interested in the welfare of the public at large and all the class of persons enumerated in its name. It is further stated that the petitioner society is interested in the welfare of the public at large and all the class of persons enumerated in its name. According to the petitionpetitioner, grave injustice has been caused to the said class of persons and that these classes of persons arc not in a position to individually litigate and, therefore, they have approached this court through the petitioner organisation which is constituted for the purpose of safeguarding and espousing the interest of the class of members coming under its purview. ( 6 ) IT is contended by the petitioner that the act of the b. d. a. in passing the resolution for making a bulk allotment in favour of respondent No. 4 is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Provisions of the act and the rules. ( 7 ) THE second contention is that the action of the b. d. a. in making the bulk allotmentign ring the statutory provision in respect of the reservation in favour of the class of persons specified under Rule 11 (4) of the rules amounts to infraction of the mandatory Provisions of the statute and, therefore, void. ( 8 ) THE third contention is that the b. d. a. has exceeded its jurisdiction by makinga bulk allotment which is contrary to the Provisions of the scheme that was approved and declared by the state government. The other contention is that there is a failure of public duty on the part of the state government and the b. d. a. in not adhering to the mandatory provision of the statute thereby resulting in favouritism to a particular class of person resulting in violence to article 14 of the Constitution of India and that there is a failure of the b. d. a. in the performance of its public duty under the statutory mandate. Lastly it is contended that respondent-4-socicty consists of only one class of persons who are of the employed class of a particular institution and, therefore, by making a bulk allotment, the b. d. a. has singled out one class of persons for allotment which is prohibited under the statute. ( 9 ) RESPONDENT-4-SOCIETY has filed a detailed statement of objections, the substance of which is that the petitioner society has no locus standi to launch the writ proceedings. ( 9 ) RESPONDENT-4-SOCIETY has filed a detailed statement of objections, the substance of which is that the petitioner society has no locus standi to launch the writ proceedings. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to respondent-4, the combined effect of sections 31 and 32 of the act preserves the power of the b. d. a. to permit the formation of layout by parties subject to application with plans and other particulars contemplated under Section 32 (2) of the act as well as under Section 14 of the act and that the Provisions of the rules are inapplicable in respect of private layout sanctioned by the b. d. a. when for the formation and implementation of such a layout the property which is vested in the b. d. a. is transferred to such a party. According to respondent-4, anything done in pursuance of the power vested under Section 32 of the act by the b. d. a. cannot be called as a deviation of the scheme approved by the stale government. What is done by the b. d. a. , according to respondent-4, is the sale of a minute portion of the land acquired to respondent-4 permitting the formation of a private layout which is only an implementation of the approved scheme in furtherance of it and in achieving the object behind the scheme. ( 11 ) IT is contended by respondent-4 that it applied on 28-12-1982 to the b. d. a. for sale of 25 acres of land in one plot in sy. Nos. 15 to 29, 31, 53 to 55 and 130 of kempapura agrahara and requested for transfer of the said land to it whereupon the b. d. a. sold the property on 2-6-1986 to respondent-4 for a consideration of Rs. 31,25,000/ -. The object of the purchase was to have houses for its members at one place for their convenience, regularity, punctuality, etc. , in attending to their office, work and to bring about support and closeness among the family members. It is also stated that respondent-4-society has, so far, invested in the housing project a sum of Rs. 67,00,000/- including consideration for sale of 25 acres of land, stamp duty of Rs. 3,75,000/-, registration fee of Rs. 62,510/- and security charges of Rs. 1,75,000/- bcsides project expenses including plans, architects, legal cell, etc. , and that the society has already collected Rs. 67,00,000/- including consideration for sale of 25 acres of land, stamp duty of Rs. 3,75,000/-, registration fee of Rs. 62,510/- and security charges of Rs. 1,75,000/- bcsides project expenses including plans, architects, legal cell, etc. , and that the society has already collected Rs. 27,000/- from each member with the remaining amount to be recovered from its members. It is stated that, if the grant of land to the society was to be set aside, the society would be losing the land and that the expenses incurred so far would become a waste resulting in grave injustice to the society and its members. ( 12 ) IT is also stated that the action of the b. d. a. is legitimate and falls within theambit of Section 69 (2) (g) of the act that the Provisions of Section 69 (2) (h) are not attracted. ( 13 ) ADDITIONAL statement of objections by respondent-4 was filed on 21-6-1989. It is stated that respondent-4 entered into an agreement with the b. d. a. on 11-8-1988 and the same was registered at the office of the sub-registrar and a work order was issued by the b. d. a. along with the sanctioned plan on 14-12-1988. Thereafter, respondent-4-society called for tenders and entrusted the contract to a contractor for Rs. 44,00,000/- issuing the work order on 6-2-1989 and that he has been paid an advance of Rs. 1,75,000/ -. It is also stated that the work is in progress under the supervision of the engineering department of the b. d. a. in order to achieve the purpose of the scheme. It is further stated that the total extent involved in the project of the 4th respondent-society is about Rs. 1,50,00,000/- of which about Rs. 80,00,000/- has been contributed by the members with an assurance for further contribution and that the members of the society have been waiting for allotment of sites since a long time. ( 14 ) NO statement of objections is filed by respondents-1 and 2 as well as respondent-3. however, arguments were advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. ( 15 ) A preliminary objection was raised by respondent-4's counsel as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi i propose to deal with this contention before going to the merits of the case. however, arguments were advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. ( 15 ) A preliminary objection was raised by respondent-4's counsel as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi i propose to deal with this contention before going to the merits of the case. ( 16 ) IN rajatha enterprises v s. k. sharma, ILR 1989 kar. 1839 : 1989 (2) scc495, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the scope of public interest litigation. The contentions raised in this regard are to be found in para 20 of the decision which reads thus:"considering these aspects, Shri Iyer submits that there is no merit in the contention that the construction of the building by the appellant was in violation of the licence granted or that the licence under which construction was undertaken was contrary to statutory Provisions or other orders. The public is in no manner aggrieved by the construction of the building. No member of the public has come forward to say that his privacy has been affected by the construction of the building or the safety of the neighbourhood or of the inmates of the building has been in any manner endangered. Respondent-1, counsel says, is neither a resident in the neighbourhood of the building nor is he a person affected by the construction of the building. He has neither any personal grievance to vindicate nor any public cause to espouse in challenging the validity of the licence granted to the appellant. "accepting these contentions, the Supreme Court held in the following terms:". . . . . WHATEVER may be the personal grievance of respondent-1, the high court was not justified, at the instance of respondent-1 claiming himself to be a champion of the public cause, in ordering the demolition of any part of the building, particularly when there is no evidence whatsoever of dishonesty or fraud or negligence on the part of the builder. . . WHATEVER may be the personal grievance of respondent-1, the high court was not justified, at the instance of respondent-1 claiming himself to be a champion of the public cause, in ordering the demolition of any part of the building, particularly when there is no evidence whatsoever of dishonesty or fraud or negligence on the part of the builder. " ( 17 ) 1 do not think that it is impermissible to hold thatin the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner which is a registered body whose aims are to take all such measures for the development of the classes of the people stated in the name of the organisation and also to make such endeavours and efforts to safeguard the interest of the class of persons stated in the name of the association and such other activities for the development of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, minorities and backward classes in karnataka, has a public cause to espouse. In my opinion, the aims and objectives of the petitioner are sufficient to constitute public cause and to hold that the public interest litigation brought by the petitioner is not only maintainable but the petitioner does have a locus standi to maintain the same. ( 18 ) WHETHER the b. d. a. has the power to make bulk allotment of lands acquired under the Provisions of the act for the purposes of a development scheme in favour of a co-operative society, was considered by rama jois, j. In the Bangalore district co-operative central bank employees' co-operative society limited v the b. da. , 1989 (1) kar. L. j. 111. The court held on page 117 as follows:". . . . the only power conferred under sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the act is to make an improvement in the scheme and for that purpose to alter a scheme to the extent necessary. The word 'improvement' used in Section 19 (4) is significant. This means alterations in the layouts such as formation of sites, roads or providing of civic amenities to be made, must result in improving the scheme. There is no power in the board to dispose of the land which would have the effect of nullifying the scheme. The word 'improvement' used in Section 19 (4) is significant. This means alterations in the layouts such as formation of sites, roads or providing of civic amenities to be made, must result in improving the scheme. There is no power in the board to dispose of the land which would have the effect of nullifying the scheme. The duly of the board is to fully form and develop the land and allot the sites or buildings in accordance with the rules framed under the Act, namely, the Bangalore development authority (allotment of sites) rules, 1982 and the Bangalore development authority (allotment of buildings under self financing housing scheme) rules, 1982. The act does not envisage the bulk disposal of the land acquired for a scheme in favour of any one. Bulk allotment of land in an undeveloped state clearly amounts to the violation of the scheme and abdication of its duty by the Bangalore development authority. Under the act it is the power and duty of the Bangalore development authority itself to execute a development scheme with improvement, if any, considered necessary, and then to invite applications for allotment of sites and to make allotments in accordance with the rules, and thereby ensure that allotments are made without violating article 14 of the constitution. The effect of bulk allotment would be to divert the sites available to the general public to a limited number of members of society, to be distributed by its managing committee uncontrolled by article 14 and the rules of allotment. The object and intendment of the act is that in the area in which the Bangalore development authority operates, it is its duty to prepare the schemes and implement the scheme and no other agency, for formation and allotment of sites formed in the land acquired under the Act, is envisaged by the Provisions of the act. Therefore, the government order or resolution of the Bangalore development authority which contemplate such bulk allotment, are ultra vires the Provisions of the act. " ( 19 ) IN b. Venkataswamy reddy v slate of karnataka, 1lr 1989 kar. 75, bopanna, j. ,considered the scope of Section 38 of the act and held as follows:"section 38 comes under chapter v of the act. Chapter v deals with property and finance of the board. " ( 19 ) IN b. Venkataswamy reddy v slate of karnataka, 1lr 1989 kar. 75, bopanna, j. ,considered the scope of Section 38 of the act and held as follows:"section 38 comes under chapter v of the act. Chapter v deals with property and finance of the board. Section 38 of the act reads as: 'power or authority to lease, sell or transfer property - subject to such restrictions, conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the authority shall have power to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property which belongs to it, and to appropriate or apply any land vested in or acquired by it for the formation of open spaces or for building purposes or in any other manner for the purpose of any development scheme'. On the plain terms of Section 38, it consists of 2 parts. The first part deals with the power of the b. d. a. to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property which belongs to it. The second part deals with the power of the b. d. a. to appropriate or apply any land vested in or acquired by it for the formation of open spaces or for building purposes or in any other manner for the purpose of any development scheme. The comma after the first part of Section 38 makes it clear that these 2 parts should be read disjunctively and not conjunctively. So, there is a distinction between the power of the b. d. a. in regard to movable and immovable properties which belong to it and the power of the b. d. a. to appropriate or apply any land vested in it or acquired by it for the formation of open spaces or for building purposes or in any other manner for the purpose of any development scheme. The legislature having used 2 different expressions to indicate the powers of the b. d. a. as regards movable and immovable properties belonging to it and property vested in it or'acquired by it, this court has to go into the intendment of legislature by giving proper meaning to the words 'belongs to it' and the words 'vested in or acquired by it'. The b. d. a. can independently of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act acquire land as is evident from Section 3 read with Section 35 of the act. The b. d. a. can independently of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act acquire land as is evident from Section 3 read with Section 35 of the act. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the act enables the b. d. a. to acquire, hold and dispose of both movables and immovable property. Section 35 and Section 36 come under chapter iv of the act and that chapter deals with acquisition of land. Section 35 of the act reads as:"authority to have power to acquire land by agreement subject to the Provisions of this act and with the previous approval of the government, the authority may enter into an agreement with the owner of any land or any interest therein, whether situated within or without the Bangalore metropolitan area for the purchase of such land. "section 36 (1) reads as:"provisions applicable to the acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement (1) the acquisition of land under this act otherwise than by agreement within or without-the Bangalore metropolitan area shall be regulated by the Provisions, so far as they are applicable, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. "section 36 (3) also requires to be noticed and it reads as:"after the land vests in the government under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the deputy commissioner shall, upon payment of the cost of the acquisition, and upon the authority agreeing to pay any further costs which may be incurred on account of the acquisition, transfer the land to the authority, and the land shall thereupon vest in the authority. "the contention of the petitioners is that the power of reconveyance could be discerned from the other Provisions of the Act, viz. , sections 3, 13 (a), 14, 19 (4), 31, 35 read with Section 38 of the act. Section 14 comes under chapter ii of the act which is a general provision dealing with the Constitution and incorporation of b. d. a. and the general working of the b. d. a. Section 14 specifies the objects of the b. d. a. and that object is to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of movable and immovable property, whether within or outside the area under its jurisdiction, to carry out building, engineering and other operations and generally to do all things necessary or expedient for the purpose of such development and for purposes incidental thereto. Section 19 deals with the sanction of the scheme prepared under Section 15 of the act. Section 19 (1) comes under chapter iii development scheme and reads as:"upon sanction, declaration to be published giving particulars of land to be acquired. Upon sanction of the scheme, the government shall publish in the official gazette declaration stating the fact of such sanction and that the land proposed to be acquired by the authority for the purposes of the scheme is required for a public purpose. "section 19 (4) of the act reads as:"if at any time it appears to the authority that an improvement can be made in any part of the scheme the authority may alter the scheme for the said purpose and shall subject to the Provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) forthwith proceed to execute the scheme as altered. "from these sub-sections it is sought to be made out that the b. d. a. has power to alter the scheme and any land which is not required after such alteration could be conveyed to the original owner of the land and that is why under Section 13 of the Act, the b. d. a. has got the power to make appropriate resolutions to implement the scheme and the incidental power to reconvey the land by making resolutions if the land in question is not required for the implementation of the scheme. In my view, sections 13,14 and 19 on which the learned counsel for the petitioners have relied do not throw any light on the proper construction of Section 38 of the act. These Provisions come under chapters ii and iii of the act which deal with the general working of the b. d. a. and not with the power of the b. d. a. to acquire land otherwise than under the Provisions of Section 35 of the act. In my view, for a proper construction of Section 38 of the Act, Provisions of sections 35, 36 and 37 of the act should be taken into consideration, since these are the provisions which come under chapters iv and v of the act and have a bearing on the power of the b. d. a. to acquire land otherwise than by private agreement. Under Section 35 of the Act, the power of the b. d. a. to enter into an agreement with the owner of any land cannot be disputed. Under Section 35 of the Act, the power of the b. d. a. to enter into an agreement with the owner of any land cannot be disputed. In these cases, the land in question was not purchased by entering into private agreements. Under Section 36 (1) the acquisition of land under the act otherwise than by agreement is regulated by the Provisions, so far as they are applicable, of the Land Acquisition Act. That means to say, under the Land Acquisition Act the state government, as in these cases, is the authority to acquire the land. That is also clear from sub-section (3) of Section 36 of the act which lays down that "after the land vests in the government under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the deputy commissioner shall, upon payment of the costs of the acquisition and upon the authority agreeing to pay any further costs which may be incurred on account of the acquisition, transfer the land to the authority and the land shall thereupon vest in the authority. " this is further clear from Section 19 (1) of the act since the government shall publish in the official gazette the declaration stating the fact of such sanction and that the land proposed to be acquired by the authority for the purposes of the scheme is required for a public purpose. Under Section 37 of the act the government has got additional power to transfer to b. d. a. or to vest in b. d. a. any land belonging to it or to the corporation or to a local authority. That is in addition to the power under Section 36 to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act and vest the same in b. d. a. on payment of costs of acquisition and further costs under Section 36 (3) of the act. Under Section 37 (3) of the Act, the government by notification in the gazette has the power to revest in itself or transfer to itself or the corporation or the local authority concerned the land in question if the same is not required by the b. d. a. for the purpose of the act or any other land vesting in the b. d. a. is required by the government or corporation or a local authority. So, if sections 36, 37 and 38 of the act are read together it is clear that a distinction is made between the power of the b. d. a. to sell or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property belonging to it and the power of the b. d. a. to appropriate or apply the land vested in or acquired by it for the formation of open spaces or for building purpose or for any other development scheme. " in para 10, the court observed:-"now the point for consideration is whether the land in question comes under the first part of Section 38 or under the second part of Section 38 of the act. Admittedly, the land did not belong to the b. d. a. since the same was not purchased under the Provisions of Section 35 of the Act, i. e. , by agreement between the parties. The lands were acquired by the government under the Provisions of Section 36 (1) and they vested in the b. d. a. under the Provisions of Section 36 (3 ). If that be so, these lands come under the second part of Section 38 of the Act, i. e. , the b. d. a. has power to appropriate or apply any land vested in it for the formation of open spaces or for building purposes or in any other manner for the purpose of any development scheme. That is to say, the resolutions in question passed by the b. d. a. could have been within its powers if they had related to lands belonging to it and not the lands which had vested in under the Provisions of Section 36 of the act. That should be the proper construction as is evident from the entire scheme of the act. The scheme is for the development of the city of Bangalore and the area adjacent thereto and for matters connected therewith and with that object the b. d. a. was constituted. The legislature created this authority with that object in view and it has also empowered the state government to lend a helping hand to it by invoking the Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. So the b. d. a. is freed from the various legal procedure that will have to be complied with for acquiring the land for its development schemes. So the b. d. a. is freed from the various legal procedure that will have to be complied with for acquiring the land for its development schemes. The same pattern of legislation is found in similar other acts, viz. , k. i. d. Act, Karnataka area development boards Act, etc. If the b. d. a. were to be given the power to reconvey the land vested in it, by exercising the power under Section 13 of the Act, that would be self-defeating and destructive of the purpose of constituting a special authority for the development of the city of Bangalore. Thus construed, both the resolutions in favour of the petitioners in both the petitions are without jurisdiction and void and once it is held that the resolutions are void the petitioners cannot seek any other right either by acquiescence or by the principle of promissory estoppel. " ( 20 ) THE b. d. a. being a statutory authority having formulated a scheme in accordance with the Provisions of the act and having obtained the approval of the state, cannot deviate from the scheme except in the manner provided under the act. The land was acquired by the state government and made over to the b. d. a. for a specific purpose of executing the approved scheme and such a land has to be utilised by the b. d. a. solely for the purpose of execution of the scheme in the manner envisaged by the scheme and not beyond. After the formation of the layout by the b. d. a. , the sites formed in accordance with the scheme are bound to be allotted only in consonance with the rules of allotment holding the field and the authority has no power to sell away the land earmarked for the formation of a layout under the approved scheme. The land is held by the b. d. a. for the state government in trust. It should not be forgotten that the land was acquired by the state government at the instance of the b. d. a. and the scheme was approved by the state government. A part of such land cannot be handed over to a society for however noble a purpose since it would be contrary to the intendment of the scheme and the act and virtually would amount to fraud or a breach of trust. A part of such land cannot be handed over to a society for however noble a purpose since it would be contrary to the intendment of the scheme and the act and virtually would amount to fraud or a breach of trust. It has to be remembered that public authorities are expected to function in accordance with the Rule of law and not to act in erosion of schematic purpose of the legislation. Administrative Justice does not recognise public interest immunity in authorities created by the statute in the performance of statutory duties. Public interest is inherent in the statutory obligations imposed by the statute on public authorities. One of the principles of Rule of law as enunciated by dicey is: "the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power excludes the existence of arbitrariness of prerogative or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the government. . . " in ward v james, (1966)1 qb 273, it was pithily observed:-"it is only where powers are given for the personal benefit of the person empowered that the discretion is absolute. Plainly this can have no application in public law. "lord menaghten in westminister corporation v l and nw railway, (1905) ac 426 (430), articulated:"it is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers such as those conferred upon the corporation must take care not to exceed or abuse its powers. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith. And it must act reasonably. The last proposition is involved in the second, if not in the first. "it is a well settled principle of administrative law that statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which when parliament while conferring it, is presumed to have intended it. . . (sec: sachs, j. In commissioners of customs and excise v cure and deeley ltd. , (1962)1 qb 340 (366 and 367): ( 21 ) THE society to which a part of the land is sought to be made over cannot bedescribed as an instrumentality of the b. d. a. under the Act, by any stretch of imagination. The act docs not admit of plurality of interest. , (1962)1 qb 340 (366 and 367): ( 21 ) THE society to which a part of the land is sought to be made over cannot bedescribed as an instrumentality of the b. d. a. under the Act, by any stretch of imagination. The act docs not admit of plurality of interest. Similarly of object between the society and the b. d. a. cannot lend legitimacy to the transaction. The source, of power is to be located in the statute and there is no power given to the authority to part with any portion of the land covered by the scheme. Non-performance of its statutory duty by the authority not only would be detrimental to the public interest, but also cause public injury and, in turn, deal a lethal blow to the Rule of law. ( 22 ) WHAT is relevant is not the nomenclature of the conveyance deed, but the undisputed fact that there is a conveyance of a part of the land covered by the scheme in favour of the society. A reading of the instrument of transfer, fortifies the view that it is intended to be a deed of transfer and nothing else in favour of the society by the authority for valuable consideration. ( 23 ) THE contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents including the b. d. a. tread familiar lines on which arguments were advanced in both the cases referred to earlier. The central point is whether the b. d. a. has the power to make bulk allotment of lands acquired under the Provisions of the act for the purposes of a development scheme in favour of respondent-4. The facts and circumstances of the case are similar to the facts and circumstances considered in the case of the Bangalore district co-operative central bank employees' co-operative society limited v b. d. a. and another, 1989 (1) kar. L. j. 111. I am in respectful agreement with rama jois, j. I hold that the authority has no power to make bulk allotment of lands acquired under the Provisions of the act for the purpose of a specific development scheme in favour of respondent-4-society. The ratio of the decision in the aforesaid case is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The ratio of the decision in the aforesaid case is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. All arguments and all aspects of the matter have been exhaustively dealt with in the aforesaid decision and also in the case of b. Venkataswamy reddy, ILR 1989 kar. 75. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not hold water. The decisions cited at the bar by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, it is not necessary for me to wade through the plethora of decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. A grain of gold in a tonne of waste is sufficient and relevant for the purpose of reaching the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. ( 24 ) FOR the reasons stated above, Rule is issued and made absolute. The writ petitionis allowed and the impugned resolution and the letter under annexures-'c' and 'd' respectively are quashed. Respondent-3 is directed to dispose of the sites only in accordance with the Bangalore development authority (allotment of sites) rules. --- *** --- .