K. SUBBEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD — 1991 DIGILAW 283 (KAR)

H. G. BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, who are the residents and tax payers of hassan, have preferred this public interest action seeking a declaration that the allotment of the schedule site to respondent-3-sri aravinda education society, hassan, by order dated 2-5-1984 is illegal and void and to prohibit respondents-1 and 2 the Karnataka housing board, Bangalore, and the state of Karnataka respectively from granting the schedule property to respondent-3 and further for a direction to respondents-1 and 2 to retain the schedule property as a park and to develop the same. ( 2 ) IT appears that respondent-1 published a scheme under Section 18 of the Karnataka housing board act and Rule 8 of the rules framed thereunder and a plan of the scheme was published vide annexure-b. The area in question measures a little over an acre of land and it is alleged that it is a public amenity side intended to be a park. It is stated that for the entire area there is only one park as shown in Annexure-B at x, y and z. The 1st petitioner had applied for allotment of a house and it was allotted to him under the scheme known as Karnataka housing board colony, beerenahalli, hassan, which also provides for buildings and sites for the weaker sections, for members of low income group, middle income group and high income group of the society and the total extent of land in the entire area is about 100 acres with provision for 800 houses. ( 3 ) THE petitioners have made special mention of a government primary school which is run in a rented house No. 54 situate opposite to the alleged park. ( 4 ) IT is alleged that one b. K. Rangaswamy who is the secretary of respondent-3-society is a member of janata party and is a close associate of the then minister for major irrigation and public works in the government of Karnataka and that he belongs to the same caste. It is imputed that, as a result of the close associate between the two, b. K. Rangaswamy succeeded in bringing pressure on respondent-1 to dispose of the land in question to respondent-3 though it is said to be reserved for a park. According to the petitioners, the area allotted to respondent-3 was at the rate of Rs. 36/- per square metre. According to the petitioners, the area allotted to respondent-3 was at the rate of Rs. 36/- per square metre. It is alleged that the commissioner was unwilling to yield to the pressure of the erstwhile p. w. d. minister. It is also alleged that the order was not issued by the commissioner, but by an official substituting for him who was in-charge in the absence of the commissioner and that the order was passed in haste. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, when the site was allotted to respondent-3, it had. been reserved for a park and there was no modification of the scheme for utilisation of the said area for any other purpose and that a public amenity site can never be diverted for a purpose other than for which it has been reserved. It is also the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner purchased a site as well as a house on account of the representation held out that the area in question is reserved for a park and, therefore, respondents-1 and 2 are estopped from going behind their assurance. The impugned grant in favour of respondent-3 at the rate of Rs. 36/- per square metre is almost a throw-away price because in the vicinity sites have been auctioned at Rs. 1,000/- per square metre and that the 1st petitioner himself had offered his bid in an auction of site No. 18 and purchased it at the rate of Rs. 750/- per square metre. In short, the allegation is that undue favour has been conferred upon respondent-3. ( 6 ) THE writ petition was filed on 6-6-1984 and Sri h. D. Devegowda, m. L. A. , was impleaded as respondent No. 5 on 23- 8-1984 and earlier the director of town planning in Karnataka was impleaded as respondent-4 on 23-7-1984. Originally the writ petition had only 3 respondents, namely, the Karnataka housing board, the state of Karnataka and Sri aravinda education society. ( 7 ) A statement of objections was filed on behalf of respondent-3 wherein it is categorically denied that Annexure-B to the writ petition which is a plan is incorrect and that it is not an authenticated copy of the plan or even a certified copy of the plan issued by the Karnataka housing board. ( 7 ) A statement of objections was filed on behalf of respondent-3 wherein it is categorically denied that Annexure-B to the writ petition which is a plan is incorrect and that it is not an authenticated copy of the plan or even a certified copy of the plan issued by the Karnataka housing board. On the other hand, it is alleged that the plan is misleading showing the triangular area in question as reserved for park. It is asserted that the triangular piece of land (site) is reserved for school as could be seen in the authenticated plan produced in writ petition No. 9397 of 1984. Respondent-3 has made available the authenticated plan prepared by the town planning authority showing the said triangular area as reserved for a school vide annexure-r1. All allegations to the contrary made by the petitioners have been unequivocally denied by respondent-3. As regards the relationship of b. K. Rangaswamy who is the secretary of respondent-3-society that he is a close associate and caste combrade of the then p. W. D. Minister is denied as incorrect and similarly the allegation that pressure was brought on respondent No. 1 by the said minister to dispose of the area in favour of respondent-3 is denied. It is stated that respondent-3 started an educational institution in hassan town in 1979 and initially a primary school was started by him in a hired building and later on a middle school, upper primary school and high school were started and that there are about 900 students in the institution at the time the objection statement was filed. According to respondent-3, there is no high school in the vicinity or proximity of the locality except a government high school which is about 2 kms. Away from the area in question. It is averred that respondent-3 is running a high school with the leave and licence of the landlord of a house situate on the western side of the colony. Subsequently, respondent-3 applied on 4-3-1983 and on 24-8-1983 for allotment of a building to run the school in the housing colony and he received an endorsement dated 3-1-1984 vide annexure-rl (a) from the housing board to the effect that the building in question is required for their godown and it is open to respondent-3 to apply for a vacant site for the purpose of construction of a school. In December 1983, according to respondent-3, the housing commissioner inspected the building where the respondent is running the high school and being satisfied that the grievance of the respondent is genuine and the requirements of respondent-3 are bona fide, the commissioner recommended to the board for allotment of a site for construction of a school building. It is stated that this respondent applied for allotment of a site for the said purpose on 20-1-1984 whereas the earlier application was for the allotment of a building vide annexure-r2. ( 8 ) IT is only after due consideration, the impugned allotment was made and the said area was reserved for the purpose of a school by the town planning authority and not for a park as alleged. It is also stated that with the exclusion of the godown building, the remaining area was allotted to respondent-3 by order dated 2-5-1984 vide annexure-r3. It is claimed that the school run by respondent-3 has been progressing well and 78% result was achieved in x standard and the housing board allotted the site at the prevailing rates applicable to the educational institutions. It is also maintained that the allotment of sites is a matter of discretion and policy since concessional rates are offered to educational institutions by the board. A photograph of the building having been completed and ready for functioning is also produced before the court. ( 9 ) ON 7-1-1985, the petitioners have filed additional statement of facts makingadditional allegations against the respondents. It is alleged that the chairman of respondent-1 is one y. K. Ramaiah, an erstwhile m. L. A. Of janata party and that he is at the mercy of respondent-5 who is the president of the janata party when the additional statement of facts was filed. It is further alleged that the said y. K. Ramaiah wanted to contest the parliament election from tumkur constituency on janata party ticket and that respondent-5 had bargained with him for ensuring that the schedule property is allotted to respondent-3 for favour of a party ticket. It is also alleged that before the impugned order was passed, applications were not invited from interested persons, nor the site publicly auctioned to be given on lease to safeguard public interest. The allegation is that respondent-3 has been picked and choosen for a favour. It is also alleged that before the impugned order was passed, applications were not invited from interested persons, nor the site publicly auctioned to be given on lease to safeguard public interest. The allegation is that respondent-3 has been picked and choosen for a favour. ( 10 ) ANOTHER allegation is that the Karnataka housing board has abdicated its discreation by mechanically confirming the action of the housing commissioner and there is no independent application of mind. Imputation of political motive and mala fides to further political interest of respondents-3 and 5 is also made. The corrigendum issued is also questioned. ( 11 ) ON behalf of the Karnataka housing board (respondent 1), statement of objections has been filed denying all the allegations made by the petitioners and it is maintained that the order leasing out the land to educational institution (respondent-3) was passed in anticipation of approval by the board, by the chairman on the recommendation of the housing commissioner and it is incorrect to state that the order was not signed by the commissioner appointed under Section 10 (1) of the act. It is also stated that only the communication sent to the educational institution (respondent-3) was signed by the incumbent holding additional charge of the housing commissioner in the absence of regular housing commissioner who was on leave. The allegation of undue favour and the allegation of wilting under pressure are totally denied. The housing board has claimed that the area leased is a site marked for school purpose according to the layout plan pertaining to beeranahally tank achkat area duly approved by the department of town planning and hence there is no deviation from the approved layout plan and that action taken by the board is in accordance with law. ( 12 ) RESPONDENT-5, who was the minister for p. w. d. at the time of filing the affidavit has denied the allegations made against him. He has denied that b. K. Rangaswamy is a close associate and caste combrade of him. It is also stated that this respondent is not aware that b. K. Rangaswamy belongs to the same community as the respondent. The respondent has categorically stated that he has not pressurised anybody to allot the land in question to b. K. Rangaswamy in violation of law. Similarly it is denied that respondent-5 evinced keen interest in getting the land allotted to respondent-3. The respondent has categorically stated that he has not pressurised anybody to allot the land in question to b. K. Rangaswamy in violation of law. Similarly it is denied that respondent-5 evinced keen interest in getting the land allotted to respondent-3. He has also denied the averment in para-7b of the amended writ petition that y. K. Ramaiah is at the mercy of respondent-5 and but for the fact that both are in the same party, it is asserted that neither of them is at the mercy of the other. This respondent has also denied the alleged bargain for getting the land allotted to respondent-3 in return for party ticket to y. K. Ramaiah to contest the parliament election from tumkur constituency. Respondent-5 has further stated in para-5 of the affidavit as follows:-"i have been in public life for nearly three decades and am representing the holenarsipur assembly constituency since 1962. As I am in public life for over three decades and minister representing hassan district, many people approach me for various purposes. Sri b. K. Rangaswamy, secretary of the 3rd respondent-institution, approached me and while informing that he has made an application for grant of land in question for the purpose of starting an educational institution, requested me to write a letter to the chairman of the Karnataka housing board to consider his application. Since the application was made for grant of land for starting an educational institution, which is a public purpose, i wrote a letter to the chairman, k. h. b. to consider his application for grant of land. Except for this letter which is written as a member of the legislative assembly representing the neighbouring constituency, I have no interest whatsoever with the land in question. Apart from writing the letter to consider the application of the 3rd respondent, which is in the natural course of administration, I have not pressurised anybody much less Sri y. K. Ramaiah to allot the land in favour of Sri b. K. Rangaswamy. "it is further pointed out by respondent-5 that in the unamended writ petition, allegations were made against him by the petitioners without impleading him and subsequently they have impleaded him only as an afterthought. "it is further pointed out by respondent-5 that in the unamended writ petition, allegations were made against him by the petitioners without impleading him and subsequently they have impleaded him only as an afterthought. ( 13 ) SINCE the respondents disputed the allegation of the petitioners that the entire area was earmarked for a park vide Annexure-B and insisted that Annexure-B is neither a certified copy nor an authenticated copy issued by the town planning authority, i called upon the learned standing counsel appearing for the Karnataka housing board to answer by an affidavit the question whether the area had been reserved for a school or for a park. Thereupon, on behalf of the board two affidavits were filed on 21-3-1991 and 5-4-1991 clarifying the position. In the former affidavit sworn to by m. R. Rajashekharaiah, executive engineer of the Karnataka housing board division, hassan, it was stated in para-2 as follows:-"i submit that the layout plan of beeranahally ist stage, hassan, a copy of which was produced as Annexure-G in the petition is a documentation drawing prepared in the year 1974 and submitted to hudco, for obtaining necessary loan, the agreement of which was executed during february, 1975, between the board and hudco. From the available records, it is noticed that similar layout plan had been submitted to the town planning authority at hassan which has been later on approved by the director of town planning. "in the latter affidavit filed on 5-4-1991 sworn to by a. Lakshman reddy, deputy director of town planning, Karnataka housing board, Bangalore, it was stated as follows:-"1 submit that from the records the copy of plan, Annexure-G , produced by the petitioner is a layout plan, prepared by the Karnataka housing board, for obtaining loan assistancc from hudco (housing and urban development corporation) during the year 1974 and subsequently the said layout plan was submitted to the competent authority at hassan for approval. I further submit that in the layout plan, Annexure-G , the triangular bit area was earmarked for school and park. The competent authority viz planning authority, hassan, finally designated the use of this triangular bit area for nursery school (n. S.) Only, without altering its shape and surrounding uses. I further submit that in the layout plan, Annexure-G , the triangular bit area was earmarked for school and park. The competent authority viz planning authority, hassan, finally designated the use of this triangular bit area for nursery school (n. S.) Only, without altering its shape and surrounding uses. The finally approved layout plan by the local planning authority/development authority, which is produced by the said authority is the authentic document and layout plan for references, for all purposes including allotment purposes by the board. " ( 14 ) AFTER the application for filing additional statement of facts was allowed by the court in the earlier stages, the petitioners filed an amended writ petition along with annexures 'a' to 'g'. It is with reference to Annexure-G that two affidavits were filed by the Karnataka housing board as referred to earlier. Annexure-G is the approved layout plan and Annexure-B is stated to be a layout plan which is not either a certified copy or an authenticated copy. Both annexures 'b' and 'g' have been produced by the petitioners. At the time of hearing the arguments, the original of Annexure-G was made available to the court for perusal. ( 15 ) ARGUMENTS of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard. ( 16 ) THE entire case turns on the main question whether or not the area leased outby allotment to respondent-3 was earmarked for a park or for a school. ( 17 ) THE petitioners have relied on Annexure-B in order to substantiate their allegation that the triangular area in question was earmarked for a park as a civic amenity. I have looked into annexure-b. In order to draw an inference from the contents of Annexure-B when the reliability of the Annexure itself is questioned by the respondents, it would not be proper for me to draw an inference from it without examining whether or not it is a document issued by the town planning authority. That the said document is not an authenticated document and muchless a certified copy, is beyond dispute. There is no indication on the said document by a seal of authority and signature that it was issued by the town planning authority on an application made by the petitioners. The requirements of certification are conspicuous by their absence. It would be improper to place any reliance on Annexure-B in the said circumstances. There is no indication on the said document by a seal of authority and signature that it was issued by the town planning authority on an application made by the petitioners. The requirements of certification are conspicuous by their absence. It would be improper to place any reliance on Annexure-B in the said circumstances. The position has been satisfactorily explained by the affidavit filed by a. Lakshman reddy, deputy director of town planning, Karnataka housing board, Bangalore, in his affidavit filed on 5-4-1991 before this court. The affidavit is both intelligible and categorical. As a responsible official representing the town planning authority of Karnataka housing board, he has stated that Annexure-G produced in the case is a layout plan prepared by the Karnataka housing board for the purpose of obtaining loan assistance from hudco during the year 1974 and subsequently the said layout plan was submitted to the competent authority at hassan for approval. He has further stated that in Annexure-G , the triangular bit area was earmarked for school and park and the competent authority, namely, the planning authority, hassan, finally designated the use of this triangular bit area for nursery school (n. S.) Only, without altering its shape and surrounding uses. He has stated that the finally approved layout plan by the local planning authority/development authority, which is produced by the said authority is the authentic document and layout plan for references for all purposes including allotment purposes of the board. I do not see any reason why the explanation offered by the deputy director of town planning by an affidavit should not be accepted and relied upon. In these circumstances, i am of the opinion that the area in question was earmarked for a school and not for a park. ( 18 ) THE next question for consideration is whether undue influence or pressurewas brought to bear on the authority empowered to make the allotment by respondent-5. It is evident from the facts of the case that a letter was addressed by respondent-5 who was at that time a minister for p. W. D. Addressed to the commissioner of the Karnataka housing board. It is evident from the facts of the case that a letter was addressed by respondent-5 who was at that time a minister for p. W. D. Addressed to the commissioner of the Karnataka housing board. It is a letter dated 4-3-1983 and the same is reproduced herewith:- the relevant portion of the letter which is addressed to the commissioner, Karnataka housing board, Bangalore, articulates that the commissioner of the housing board may consider the question of granting on lease the existing godown for the purpose of running a school by respondent-3. Thus, in response to the request made to the minister by respondent-3, respondent-5 who was the p. w. d. minister at that time commended consideration of the application of respondent-3 for renting out the godown and not for allotment of a site. Secondly the language and tenor of the letter clearly indicates that there was no direction or instruction from the minister, but it was only a suggestion made by the minister for consideration of the commissioner of the Karnataka housing board. In fact, this letter is addressed to the commissioner, Karnataka housing board, Bangalore, and not to any individual in his personal capacity. I do not see anything which is blameworthy or questionable in this letter addressed by respondent-5 to the commissioner of the housing board. Respondent-5 has met all the allegations made against him including mala fides and i do not see anyjustification for rejecting the same. On the other hand, since no letter was addressed by respondent-5 to the commissioner, housing board, for allotment of site to respondent-3, the allegations made by the petitioners are without foundation. No mala fides in the circumstances could be attributed to respondent-5 in any respect in regard to the matter in controversy hence, I am of the opinion that the imputations made against respondent-5 are devoid of substance and deserve to be rejected. ( 19 ) IF the Karnataka housing board, while forming one of its colonies atbeera nahalli, hassan, allots an acre of land at the rate of Rs. ( 19 ) IF the Karnataka housing board, while forming one of its colonies atbeera nahalli, hassan, allots an acre of land at the rate of Rs. 36/- per square metre to an educational society which has come forward to set up an educational institution and the housing board while doing so has given away the land even at a reduced rate as a matter of concession, i do not think that there is anything questionable in its conduct so long as it is a bonafide exercise of power. I do not find any basis to assume that the concession granted to a private educational institution to establish an educational institution in the housing board colony lacks bona fides. The assertion of the petitioners that the site in question should not have been granted without advertisement is not supported by any Rule or regulation. The discretion exercised by the board is not open to doubt on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Such an allotment cannot be placed on the same footing as allotment of a building site for personal use. The board has acted on the application of an individual institution devoted to the spread of education and, while considering and disposing of its application, the question of pick and choose does not arise. In my opinion, there is no largess involved in the action of the board. ( 20 ) RESPONDENT-1, on receipt of a recommendation from the housing commissioner, proceeded to make the allotment. There is no basis for the assumption that the board did not apply its mind before deciding upon the allotment on receipt of the recommendation from the housing commissioner. ( 21 ) IMPUTING political bias or considerations to the actions of public authorities which suits the convenience of persons interested, appears to have become the order of the day. Healthy criticism no doubt would be beneficial to public interest, but not politicisation of non-political issues. Many a time, allegations and counter-allegations against a political background in a political atmosphere will only result in "the kettle calling the pot black and vice versa" and such exchanges will only lead to undesirable controversies. ( 22 ) MUCH is made of the corrigendum vide Annexure-F on the ground that it is issued by the secretary and not by the board. ( 22 ) MUCH is made of the corrigendum vide Annexure-F on the ground that it is issued by the secretary and not by the board. The original records show that it has been issued by the secretary on the decision taken by the board and on behalf of the board and not independently of the board. When bona fide mistakes occur either by oversight or due to any other reason, the issue of corrigendum is the only known means by which the mistake could be rectified. There is no irregularity in what has been done. ( 23 ) IT is stated that there is a government school which is being run in a hired building and, at the same time, the site in question has been allotted to respondent-3 to run a private educational institution. Many a time, comparison is odious. The state's responsibility in establishing, maintaining and running educational institutions on the one hand and the role of the private institutions on the other would to a large extent meet the demands of public interest in the spread of education. The very fact that what is contemplated by article 45 of the Constitution of India exhorting the state to endeavour to provide free and compulsory education upto the age of 14 years which ought to have been done within ten years from the date of commencement of the Constitution having remained an unfulfilled dream, i do not think that there is anything wrong in privatisation of education atleast to some extent in the interest of the public. One thing is certain and that is the pupils are not affected by the establishment of a private educational institution in the colony. If the planning authority has decided to have the triangular area in question reserved for educational purpose, there is no scope for questioning the same. ( 24 ) THE original records divulge that the authority empowered under section10 (1) of the Karnataka housing board act has exercised the power when he was holding charge of the office when the commissioner had gone on leave. The functional and statutory role of the authority cannot remain in vacuum during the leave period of the commissioner. The action has been duly approved by the board and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order is without the authority of law. The functional and statutory role of the authority cannot remain in vacuum during the leave period of the commissioner. The action has been duly approved by the board and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order is without the authority of law. ( 25 ) IT may be recalled that, inspite of the erstwhile p. w. d. minister's (respondent-5 herein) letter to consider the case of respondent-3 for leasing of the godown building to run a school, the same was rejected by the board vide resolution passed on 27-12-1983 in item No. 24 of the board's proceedings as recorded in the note-sheet. Later on when respondent-3 pressed its claim for leasing of the vacant area, decision was taken to grant the same after the commissioner submitted his recommendation preceded by a spot inspection. Ultimately, allotment was made under the Provisions of the Karnataka housing board allotment regulations, 1983. ( 26 ) AS regards the allegation that no publicity was given and no applications were invited for allotment of the site in question in accordance with the Provisions of the regulations, it is to be pointed out that the petitioners cannot be regarded as aggrieved persons since they were not interested in the allotment of the same in their favour for establishing any educational institution. On the other hand, their case is that the said area should not have been allotted for establishing any educational institution and the area should have been retained for providing civic amenity like park. There were only two applicants and respondent-3 was preferred between them and the other applicant who failed to secure allotment has not come forward with any grievance. The locus standi of the petitioners is only limited to the question whether or not the allotted land was earmarked for a civic amenity like a park. On this question, I have given my finding that it was not reserved for a park, but only for the purpose of running an educational institution. ( 27 ) ACCORDING to Section 32-a (3) of the act:-"the board or the housing commissioner may delegate any of the powers exercisable and functions that may be discharged by it or him under sub-section (1) to any officer or servant of the board. " thus, it is seen that delegation of power exercisable either by the board or the housing commissioner is statutorily permitted. " thus, it is seen that delegation of power exercisable either by the board or the housing commissioner is statutorily permitted. Under sub-section (4) of Section 32-a of the Act, it is provided:"the exercise or discharge of any of the powers or functions delegated under sub-section (3) shall be subject to such limitations, conditions and control, as may be laid down by the board or the housing commissioner, as the case may be. "as already stated, the board approved the recommendation of the concerned official and proceeded to allot the area in question to respondent-3. ( 28 ) REGULATION 2 (g) of the regulations defines the expression "sites" as follows: -" "sites" means sites formed in the layouts by the board with different dimensions determined by the board for being allotted to persons belonging to economically weaker Section, low, middle and higher income groups of people, including shop sites and industrial sites to be allotted to individuals or institutions. "thus, it is seen that the definition of "sites" includes sites to be allotted to individuals or institutions. In other words, impliedly it is possible to interpret that allotment of sites to the institutions is not barred. It is also to be seen under regulation 5 that allotments shall be in the nature of leases and the allottee is only a lessee. ( 29 ) THERE is also a board resolution seen in the proceedings of the board dated30-11-1982 in subject No. 2 conferring authority on the chairman to dispose of stray sites and houses. The allotment made was placed before the board and there was an order of stay from this court. Later on, in the absence of stay on 27-10-1984 the question of allotment was considered in subject No. 19 by the board and allotment was made in favour of respondent-3 at Rs. 36/- per square metre. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for respondents-1 and 3 that the basis adopted was similar to the basis of allotment and the rate fixation made in favour of one panchajanya education society. The said society was an allottee at the rate of Rs. 55/- per square metre and similarly the rate stipulated for respondent-3 was also revised and fixed at Rs. 55/- per square metre. ( 30 ) AT this stage, it would be necessary to refer to an interim order passed by this court by swami. The said society was an allottee at the rate of Rs. 55/- per square metre and similarly the rate stipulated for respondent-3 was also revised and fixed at Rs. 55/- per square metre. ( 30 ) AT this stage, it would be necessary to refer to an interim order passed by this court by swami. J, on 7-1-1985. The relevant portion is extracted below: -"on 23-8-1984, on a prima facie finding that the plot in question had never been reserved for civic amenities and it was reserved for "nursery school", an interim order restraining the third respondent from proceeding with the construction was continued only on the ground that the chairman of the board had no authority to allot the plot in question to third respondent. At the same time, liberty was reserved to the board to re-consider the matter. Pursuant to that, the housing board has reconsidered the matter. In respect of the plot in question, two applications were filed one by the third respondent and another by gurujyothi education society. The proceedings of the board are produced as Annexure-E by the petitioners in W. P. No. 9206/1984. A perusal of the same goes to show that the board has considered the merits and demerits of the claims of both the applicants, and has come to the conclusion that having regard to the fact that the third respondent is already having its schools adjacent to the k. H. B. Colony at hassan, the allotment of the plot in question on lease to it would be beneficial to the institution. Accordingly it has resolved to allot it on lease to the 3rd respondent on certain conditions. It appears to me that at this stage it is not possible to hold that such an allotment is illegal or unauthorised. "however, the court proceeded to make the order conditional to the effect that respondent-3 shall demolish the structure and hand over vacant possession of the plot to the housing board if the impugned order is quashed. It appears to me that at this stage it is not possible to hold that such an allotment is illegal or unauthorised. "however, the court proceeded to make the order conditional to the effect that respondent-3 shall demolish the structure and hand over vacant possession of the plot to the housing board if the impugned order is quashed. ( 31 ) EVEN assuming that the petitioners have a right to agitate in the capacity of public interest litigants that the allotment of the site to respondent-3 is bad in law, such a stand cannot be countenanced in view of regulation 4 of the regulations framed under Section 76 of the Karnataka housing board Act, 1962 (karnataka act No. 10 of 1963) in supersession of all existing regulations of the subject. These regulations were made by the Karnataka housing board with previous sanction of the state government known as the Karnataka housing board (allotment) regulations, 1983, vide government order No. Hud 31 lih 77, dated 7-7-1983, coming into force at once. Regulation 4 reads thus:-"4. Reservation of sites/houses:- (1) the board may on their own or under directions from government reserve sites/houses in any area for allotment to any specified class of persons and such class of persons may consist of employees in any office or establishment in the city, town or other places in which the sites are formed/houses are constructed. There shall be reserved in each area where houses/sites are notified, a discretionary quota upto 10% in each category of houses/sites, subject to a maximum of which may be disposed by the board at its discretion, with the prior approval of the government. (2) where sites/houses are reserved under clause (1) the procedure to be followed for allotment shall be such as may be determined by the board from time to time or as may be directed by the government. (3) the Provisions of rules 8 and 9 below shall mutatis mutandis be applicable for allotment of sites/houses reserved under clause (1), except for the board's discretionary quota. "thus, it is seen that exception is made in respect of sites allotted under the board's discretionary quota. It is out of this category that respondent-3 was allotted the site and, therefore, it is not unreasonable to presume that the usual procedure applicable to the allotment of sites in other cases need not be followed in the circumstances of the case. It is out of this category that respondent-3 was allotted the site and, therefore, it is not unreasonable to presume that the usual procedure applicable to the allotment of sites in other cases need not be followed in the circumstances of the case. There is nothing on record to presume that prior approval of the government was not obtained or that the procedure to be followed for allotment is contrary to the procedure determined by the board from time to time or as may be directed by the government. Hence, I am of the view that the contention raised by the petitioners is untenable. ( 32 ) ON an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the allotment of the area in question to respondent-3 and, therefore, the writ petition fails, ( 33 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .