H. G. BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) AFTER allowing i. a.-v, I reserved the case for orders in regard to la.-vi and the main petition. ( 2 ) I. A.-VI is an application requesting for post ponement of further hearing of the case until final disposal of writ petition No. 14573 of 1990 or in the alternative till 6-7-1991. ( 3 ) IT is contended that there is everylikelihood of the petitioner's challenge to the government order in writ petition No. 14573 of 1990 appointing a special officer being negatived and the question of competence of the executive director to challenge the impugned order in this case continues to loom large and, therefore, it is just and convenient that the hearing of this writ petition should be postponed until disposal of writ petition No. 14573 of 1990 or until the expiry of the term of special officer whichever is earlier. ( 4 ) ON the face of the submission as pleaded in para-7 of the affidavit filed in support of the application for postponement of hearing, ex-fade there is no justification for postponement of the hearing of this case. The contentions put forward in this regard are purely speculative and I do not see any lawful justification or valid reason for postponing the hearing of this case at this distance of time. There is no merit in any of the contentions urged in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-2. I. a.-vi fits into the category of frivolous and vexatious interlocutory applications. The court cannot place a premium on devious methods in the form of interlocutory applications aimed at furthering the dubious cause of procrastination and hearing-evasion in a writ proceeding in particular. If such applications which are devoid of substance are entertained, the result would be misuse of the process of the court. Interlocutory applications are not intended to be devises to proliferate the back-log of cases especially when the courts are wilting under the pressure of enormous pendency of cases. Filing of such applications is reprehensible to say the least. Dissimilarity of cause of action as well as the relics sought in two independent writ petitions dealt with by different judges repels the stand taken by the b. da. For whom the state is holding a candle. I. a.-vi smacks of unwholesomeness if I may put it mildly. Filing of such applications is reprehensible to say the least. Dissimilarity of cause of action as well as the relics sought in two independent writ petitions dealt with by different judges repels the stand taken by the b. da. For whom the state is holding a candle. I. a.-vi smacks of unwholesomeness if I may put it mildly. There is neither merit nor substance in it, for its sustainance. Hence, it is rejected. ( 5 ) I shall now consider the merits of the writ petition. The petitioner is a co-operative society represented by its executive director. The petitioner has sought for a mandamus directing respondents-2 and 3 namely the Bangalore development authority and the special land acquisition officer respectively to desist from passing any awards in respect of lands in sy. Nos. 16, 18 and 19 of gerahally village, Bangalore north taluk and also lands in sy. Nos. 101,103/1, 103/2, 104/1, 105 and 106 of hosakerehally village, Bangalore south taluk. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to respondent-2 to drop acquisition proceedings in favour of the petitioner society in regard to the aforesaid lands with a further direction to the Bangalore development authority to alter the scheme under Section 19 (4) of the Bangalore development authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') so as to include the aforesaid lands. In the alternative, the petitioner has asked for a direction to respondent-2 to make a bulk allotment of the lands in question to the petitioner on such terms and conditions as are uniformly observed in similar bulk allotments after the completion of all acquisition proceedings. ( 6 ) THE material facts are that in respect of lands in sy. Nos. 16 to 19 of gerahally village in Bangalore north taluk and the lands in sy. Nos. 101, 103/1, 103/2, 104/1, 104/2, 105 and 106 of hosakerehally village in Bangalore south taluk, the Bangalore development authority had issued a no objection certificate to the petitioner society permitting the purchase of lands and a resolution passed by the Bangalore development authority was also communicated to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, on the faith of the said Order, the petitioner entered into agreements with the owners of the lands in question and advanced huge sums of money under the agreements of sale. The society was taken over by the government in the year 1976. According to the petitioner, on the faith of the said Order, the petitioner entered into agreements with the owners of the lands in question and advanced huge sums of money under the agreements of sale. The society was taken over by the government in the year 1976. The supersession order was passed under Section 30-a of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act during the emergency period and the secretary of the society was detained under misa. It is stated that the special officer took little or no interest in the affairs of the society and failed to perform his duties. It is also stated that on account of neglect, the special land acquisition officer of B. D. A. served notices on the owners of the said lands for passing awards. It is also stated that since roads were required to be laid in sy. No. 17 of gerahally and sy. No. 104/2 of hosakerehally villages for the construction of 80 feet approach road to banashankari iii stage the special officer signified his assent to the formation of the roads and, therefore, two separate orders dated 12-1-1977 and 30-12-1977 came to be passed. However, the petitioner emphasizes that it is not asserting its rights in respect of these two survey numbers. No awards appear to have been passed in respect of other survey numbers. The owners of the lands preferred writ petition No. 481 of 1978 seeking a mandamus directing the authorities not to proceed further in the matter of passing awards and not to dispossess them in pursuance of the final notification of acquisition dated 25-11-1971. An interim order was passed by the court forbidding awards in respect of sy. Nos. 16. 18 and 19 of gerahally village and sy. Nos. 101, 103/1, 103/2, 104/1, 105 and 106 of hosakerehally village. In the said writ petition, proceedings were challenged on the ground that the b. d. a, had failed to execute the scheme substantially as required under Section 27 of the act and also on the ground that sufficient opportunity had not been afforded to the owners to oppose the acquisition. But on the ground of laches the said writ petition came to be dismissed. But on the ground of laches the said writ petition came to be dismissed. ( 7 ) SINCE house building societies were statutorily prohibited from holding any vacant land or agricultural land, in order to acquire lands for the benefit of the members of such societies, the government evolved a policy to acquire lands to bona fide co-operative societies. Out of the 128 co-operative societies for whose benefit lands in and around Bangalore were sought to be acquired, the petitioner was one. The societies had parted with considerable sums of money while entering into agreements of sale with the owners of the lands and, at the same time, the societies were not in a position to complete the sales. In this situation, the government passed an order indicating the guidelines for acquisition of lands for societies while taking note of the fact that vast tracts of land had already been acquired by the B. D. A. and yet the very same lands were the subject matter of agreements of sale between the owners and the cooperative societies. It is in this predicament, a government order dated 30-4-1987 vide Annexure-D emerged. On 31-3-1983, the petitioner had applied to the special deputy commissioner and the state government for acquisition of certain lands situate in patnageri, halagewadayarahalli, avalahalli, hosakerehally and gerahally villages. In writ petition No. 7090 of 1986, a direction was issued by this court to the 3 members committee to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner expcdiliously. It is stated that the process was almost completed; but on account of reconstitution of the 3 members committee, the recommendation had not yet been sent by the 3 members committee to the government. It is emphasized that the society has a membership of more than 10000, but has been able to provide sites only to less than 10% of its members. It is emphasized that the society has a membership of more than 10000, but has been able to provide sites only to less than 10% of its members. The grievance of the petitioner is that in order to defeat the claim of the petitioner, the special land acquisition officer of the B. D. A. is contemplating to pass awards in undue haste even without issuing notices as required under the Land Acquisition Act and that the petitioner is being deprived of the benefit arising from the government order vide Annexure-D. It is also stated that the petitioner society is discriminated against since several other societies similarly situate have been conferred the favour of deletion of the lands in the concerned survey numbers from the scheme of the B. D. A. ( 8 ) THE point for consideration is whether Annexure-D is a direction under Section 65 of the act and whether it is binding on the respondents and further whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit available under Annexure-D. ( 9 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the principle of promissory estoppel is attracted to the facts of the case since the petitioner has acted on the no objection certificate issued and the resolution of the authority which was communicated to the society and that huge sums of money as consideration for agreements of sale have been paid. It is also contended that, under Annexure-D , the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of, the lands in question being deleted from the scheme of acquisition enar ling the petitioner to form a private layout af. er taking permission from the authority in accordance with law. The next contention is that under Section 65 of the act when directions are issued as apparent in Annexure-D in public interest, the authority is bound to comply with the directions and that the petitioner fulfills all the requirements of the government order under Annexure-D and is, therefore, entitled to the benefit thereunder. Lastly it is contended that respondents-2 and 3 are precluded from proceeding with further proceedings of acquisition subsequent to final notification and that unless had already been passed, the authority is bound to drop the acquisition and that the authority is bound by Section 19 (4) of the act. Lastly it is contended that respondents-2 and 3 are precluded from proceeding with further proceedings of acquisition subsequent to final notification and that unless had already been passed, the authority is bound to drop the acquisition and that the authority is bound by Section 19 (4) of the act. ( 10 ) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondent-1,it is contended as follows:-"according to Section 65 of the Bangalore development authority Act, 1976, the government may give such directions to the Bangalore development authority as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of the act. The government can issue directions under that Section, only to carry out the purposes of the act. The acquisition of land for the purpose of house building co-operative society is not one of the functions of the Bangalore development authority. The government order No. Hud 139 mwx 87, dated 30-4-1987 deals with the acquisition of land for house building cooperative societies and this government order contains the policy of the government with regard to making available the lands required by the house building co-operative societies. The government order dated 30-4-1987 is not a direction issued to the Bangalore development authority under Section 65 of the act. "it is also contended that the government has not issued any direction to the authority under Section 65 of the act and that para 4 (iii) (a) of the government order dated 30-4-1987 is a guideline to the state level co-ordination committee for the purpose of clearing the proposals for acquisition of lands and it is not a direction to the B. D. A. ( 11 ) ON behalf of respondenls-2 and 3, counter has been filed wherein it is contended that the petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure-D which is not at all applicable to the instant case and further that it has no force of law. It is also contended that Annexure-D is not issued under Section 65 of the act. It is further averred that award has been passed in respect of lands in sy. Nos. It is also contended that Annexure-D is not issued under Section 65 of the act. It is further averred that award has been passed in respect of lands in sy. Nos. 104/1 and 104/2 on 26-5-1977 and that in respect of the remaining survey numbers acquisition could not be pursued on account of an interim order of interdiction passed by this court in writ petition No. 481 of 1978, on the disposal of the said writ petition, it is stated that awards have already been passed in respect of the lands. Another contention is that since the acquisition proceedings were initiated as far back as in 1968, the writ petition filed on 7-8-1987 is barred by laches. ( 12 ) IN the additional grounds raised on behalf of respondent-2, the locus standi of the executive director of the petitioner society is questioned and it is averred that the government passed an order on 6-7-1990 superseding the committee of management of the society appointing a special officer to take charge of management and control of the affairs of the society. It is also contended that the said special officer assumed charge and is functioning and further the period of his appointment has been further extended by a government order dated 3-1-1991 until 6-7-1991. ( 13 ) IN the objection statement to I a.-iv, the petitioner has stated that by an order dated 6-7-1990 the government of Karnataka pressed into service Section 30-a of the Karnataka cooperative societies act and appointed one p. n. srinivasachari as special officer for a period of 6 months and the same expired at the stroke of 12 p. m. on 6-1-1991 and that neither the executive director nor the petitioner society received any communication of the alleged extension of terra of the special officer subsequent to 6-1-1991. In fact it is contended that no such order was passed by the government on or before 6-1-1991 and, therefore, by efflux of time the affairs and management of the petitioner society came to be restored to the previous committee of management headed by the executive director and, therefore, the said executive director and his committee of management took charge and car ried on affairs and administration of the society. It is alleged that on 7-1-1991 the ex-special officer along with his henchmen attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of premises No. 35, rathnavilasa road, basavanagudi, Bangalore, of which b. Krishna bhat who is the executive director is the absolute owner and a portion of which is being used by the petitioner society for its office establishment and further the said officer attempted to interfere with the affairs and management of the society. It is further stated that immediately on the same day the executive director instituted a civil suit in o. S. No. 119 of 1991 before the city civil court, Bangalore, (c. c. h. No. 18) and obtained an interim order of temporary injunction restraining the said special officer, his successors in office, his agents, any persons or persons claiming through him from in any way interfering with b. Krishna bhat's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also from in any manner interfering with the affairs and management of the petitioner society. It appears that the said officer did not appear before the trial court though served with summons and it was an official by name m. r. ranganath, deputy registrar of co-operative societies calling himself as the in-charge special officer who appeared before the trial court and applied for vacating the interim order of temporary injunction. Before the trial court, the plaintiff (b. Krishna bbat, executive director) urged that the said m. r. ranganath has no locus standi and that the alleged order of extension of the term of the special officer dated 3-1-1991 is concocted and fabricated and it was issued only after the passing of the temporary injunction order was served on the concerned persons. It was also pointed out that in one paper notification one b. k. viswanath was appointed as special officer to the society and in another alleged gazette notification the erstwhile special officer p. n. srinivasachari has been reappointed as special officer for the alleged extended period and that by another order the same person is appointed as private secretary to the revenue minister of the state. It was also pointed out that the government of Karnataka did not take any step to get itself impleaded as a party to the suit. It was also pointed out that the government of Karnataka did not take any step to get itself impleaded as a party to the suit. After hearing both the parties, the trial court passed an order on merits in the said suit on 26-2-1991 confirming the order of temporary injunction in favour of the executive director b. Krishna bhat and, therefore, it is contended that in the light of the subsisting order of temporary injunction, b. Krishna bhat as the executive director and his committee of management are in-charge of the management and control of the affairs of the society. ( 14 ) THE above averments are relevant only for the purpose of considering whether the petitioner has any locus standi to sue on behalf of the society. In the order passed by this court on 3-4-1991, this court allowed la.-v only to the extent of permitting the respondent concerned to raise additional ground. ( 15 ) ON a careful consideration of all the available material on record and the contentions of the parties to this writ petition, it appears to me that the entire case turns on the interpretation of the government order vide Annexure-D on the file of the government of Karnataka. It is, therefore, necessary to reproduce the same: "proceedings of the government of Karnataka sub. : Extension of time for enrollment of members of house building cooperative societies. Read: 1) g. o. No. Hud 113 mnx 85, dated 18-6-1985 2) g. o. No. Hud 113 mnx 85, dated 23-6-1986 preamble: since a large members of housing building co-operative societies in Bangalore were purchasing lands directly from the landlords or under Land Acquisition Act for formation of layouts and in order to regulate the orderly development of the city, it was felt necessary to restrict the activities of the societies. Accordingly, government vide orders read at (1) and (2) above had frozen the transfer of lands in Bangalore metropolitan area to housing co-operative societies. However, a total number of 128 housing co-operative societies (79 + 49 societies) were permitted to acquire lands through revenue department for the societies, subject to verification by 3 men committee. Accordingly, government vide orders read at (1) and (2) above had frozen the transfer of lands in Bangalore metropolitan area to housing co-operative societies. However, a total number of 128 housing co-operative societies (79 + 49 societies) were permitted to acquire lands through revenue department for the societies, subject to verification by 3 men committee. Further, Bangalore development authority has been made the sole agency to acquire lands for all housing co-operative societies in future and the extent should not exceed 20 acres per society on the condition that the society must go in for group housing or multistoreyed flats keeping in view the building bye-laws. The cut-off date for house building cooperative societies in Bangalore for having got themselves registered shall remain at 30-6-1984. Only such persons as have enrolled as members before 30-6-1984 will be eligible for allotment of sites. But in the case of employees house building co-operative societies the cut-off date for enrollment of members, out of the list of 40 societies, was relaxed even beyond 30-6-1984. On the representation of various house building co-operative societies to relax the cutoff date for registration a id enrollment of fresh membership it was considered necessary to review the whole matter of acquiring and allotting lands to housing co-operative societies and to issue further guidelines. Order No. Hud 139 mnk 87, Bangalore, dated 30th april, 1987 after examining the matter government of Karnataka issues the following orders:- 1)the cut-off date for registration of the housing co-operative societies will not be extended beyond 30th june, 1984. The societies registered subsequently to that date will have to approach the Bangalore development authority for bulk allotment of land according to government order No. Hud 113 mnx 85, dated 18th june, 1985. 2) in respect of 128 societies already approved by government fresh membership may be entertained by the societies to the extent lands are already available with them. This is subject to the condition that agreement for purchase of lands should have been entered into prior to 30th june, 1984. This condition will apply to employees' societies as well as other societies. 3) no new housing societies will be added to the list of 128 societies already approved by the government. This is subject to the condition that agreement for purchase of lands should have been entered into prior to 30th june, 1984. This condition will apply to employees' societies as well as other societies. 3) no new housing societies will be added to the list of 128 societies already approved by the government. 4) (i) the 3-men committee is reconstituted as follows:- 1) deputy commissioner, Bangalore convenor 2) secretary, Bangalore development authority- member 3) joint registrar of co-operative societies, Bangalore division member (ii) after the verification of membership of the house building co-operative: societies has been done by the three- men committee, the recommendations of the three-men committee will be placed before the state level co-ordination committee constituted as follows:- revenue commissioner chairman chairman, Karnataka industrial area development board member secretary, housing and urban development departmentmember secretary, co-operation dept. Member commissioner, Bangalore development authority member deputy commissioner, Bangalore member-secretary (iii) the state level co-ordination committee will clear the proposals for acquisition of lands within two weeks subject to the following guidelines:- (a) in cases where parallel land acquisition proceedings have either been initiated/or are contemplated by the Bangalore development authority, Karnataka housing board, Karnataka industrial area development board etc. , In respect of the lands proposed for acquisition by the house building co-operative societies, the land acquisition proceedings of the Bangalore development authority etc. , Shall not be pressed and these bodies may be asked to drop the acquisition proceedings in favour of the house building co-operative societies. However, this will not apply in cases where final awards have been passed by the Bangalore development authority, etc. (b) in case the lands proposed for acquisition for house building cooperative societies by the three- men committee fall in green belt, either in full or in part, individual cases have to be placed before the government at cabinet level for decision. (c) exemption under urban land (ceiling and regulation) act and the Karnataka Land Reforms Act may be given in favour of the house building co-operative societies in conformity with the Provisions of both the laws. 5) in the layouts approved by the Bangalore development authority, relating to house building co-operative societies, the Bangalore water supply and sewerage board, will make arrangements for supply of water and sewerage facilities on deposit of necessary funds by the societies to the Bangalore water supply and sewerage board. 5) in the layouts approved by the Bangalore development authority, relating to house building co-operative societies, the Bangalore water supply and sewerage board, will make arrangements for supply of water and sewerage facilities on deposit of necessary funds by the societies to the Bangalore water supply and sewerage board. This provision should be made compulsory by the Bangalore development authority while approving the layouts. 6) as regards the question whether the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are resorted to or not in respect of these societies, will be examined separately- by order and in the name of the governor of Karnataka sd/- r. G. Giriyan, 30-4-1987 deputy secretary to government, housing and urban dev. Department" it is apparent from the above order that a total number of 128 housing co-operative societies were permitted to acquire lands through revenue department for the societies subject to verification by three-men committee. What prompted the state government to pass the said order was the fact that a large number of house building co-operative societies in Bangalore were purchasing lands directly from the landlords or under the Land Acquisition Act for formation of layouts and, therefore, in order to regulate the orderly development of the city, the government felt it necessary to restrict the activities of the societies. It is for this reason that orders earlier were passed on 18-6-1985 and 23-6-1986 freezing the transfer of lands in Bangalore metropolitan area to the housing co-operative societies, but exception was made in respect of 128 housing co-operative societies by permitting them to acquire lands through revenue department for the benefit of the societies subject to verification by three-men committee. ( 16 ) SIGNIFICANT in the said government order is clause 4 (iii) (a) which provides that in cases where parallel land acquisition proceedings have cither been initialed or arc contemplated by the b. d. a. , Karnataka housing board, Karnataka industrial area development board etc. , In respect of lands proposed for acquisition by the house building co-operative societies, the land acquisition proceedings of the b. d. a. , etc. , Shall not be pressed and these bodies may be asked to drop acquisition proceedings in favour of the house building co-operative societies. However, this will not apply in cases where final awards have been passed by the b. d. a. , etc. , Shall not be pressed and these bodies may be asked to drop acquisition proceedings in favour of the house building co-operative societies. However, this will not apply in cases where final awards have been passed by the b. d. a. , etc. ( 17 ) THUS, it is seen that where the awards had not yet been passed by the b. d. a. , the direction of the state government was that the acquisition proceedings should be dropped in favour of the house building co-operative societies. The said order No. Hud 139 mnk 87 was issued on 30-4-1987. It cannot be disputed that at that point of time final awards had not yet been passed in respect of the lands in question. There is not dispute about the fact that the case of the petitioner society had escaped the verification of membership by the three-men committee. It is not in dispute that the petitioner society is one of the 128 co-operative societies coming within the purview of the said government order. The power of the state government to issue a direction is to be found only in Section 65 of the act. According to Section 65 of the Act, the government is empowered to issue such directions to the B. D. A. which in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of the act. This is an omnibus statutory provision which invests the state government with the power to issue such directions which in its opinion would be conducive to the implementation of the purposes of the act. The 128 societies had to survive and cater to the benefit of their members by forming private layouts and by distributing sites to them. Formation of any private layout falls within the purview of the act subject to the terms and conditions envisaged therein. What is of relevance is not whether the acquisition of land for the purpose of house building co-operative society is one of the functions of the b. d a. But what is relevant is whether the state government is empowered to issue any direction which in its opinion is required to fulfill the purpose of the act. What is of relevance is not whether the acquisition of land for the purpose of house building co-operative society is one of the functions of the b. d a. But what is relevant is whether the state government is empowered to issue any direction which in its opinion is required to fulfill the purpose of the act. The decision taken by the state government and manifested in the government order under Annexure-D is not only a decision, but also an order preceded by a discretionary decision directing the concerned authorities including the B. D. A. to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of such societies wherein final awards have not been passed prior to the date of the government order under Annexure-D. As already pointed out, in the case of the lands relating to the petitioner society, no final award had been passed on the date when the government order was issued. ( 18 ) SECTION 65 of the act is the only available statutory source of power for the state government to issue a direction to the B. D. A. there is no merit in the contention that the order in Annexure-D does not amount to a direction issued under Section 65 of the act and that it is only a product of executive policy. There is no scope for a policy decision in the context of the acquisition proceedings we are concerned with. The acquisition proceedings are not independent of the act. The facts and circumstances in which the direction was issued on 30-4-1987 compels the inference that the state government exercised its statutory discretion under Section 65 of the act and in exercise of that power proceeded to issue a direction under Annexure-D explaining the policy underlying the exercise of power in the preamble to the said order or direction. It is too late in the day for the government to wriggle out of the tangle created by itself. It is only when the field is uninhabited by law, an order could be passed under the residuary executive power stemming from executive policy. The field is already occupied by the statutory provision of Section 65 of the act and the state cannot go behind its own direction. It is only when the field is uninhabited by law, an order could be passed under the residuary executive power stemming from executive policy. The field is already occupied by the statutory provision of Section 65 of the act and the state cannot go behind its own direction. In my opinion, the said order is a direction issued by the state government in exercise of its power under Section 65 of the act and such a direction has not only the force of law but is also mandatory. To prove the point, the B. D. A. has accepted the direction and acted on it with the result that acquisition proceedings relating to several societies came to be dropped and quite rightly too. What is questionable is the exclusion of the petitioner which is one of the 128 societies, without rhyme or reason. No reason or justification is offered as to why the petitioner is left out and why the benefit of the government order dated 30-4-1987 is denied to the petitioner. In the absence of reason and valid explanation, it would not be unreasonable to hold that the petitioner has been unjustly singled out for discriminatory and unfair treatment. In my opinion, the denial of the benefit of the government order under Annexure-D to the petitioner is arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is neither fair, nor reasonable, for the authority to resile from the no objection certificate granted to the petitioner society based on the resolution passed by the authority under communication to the petitioner, the authority cannot both approbate and reprobate. Considerations of reasonableness and fairness hi the exercise of statutory discretion ought to prevail over arbitrariness and irrationality. The principle of promissory estoppel is attracted to the facts of the case. ( 19 ) LORD templeton's enunciation of the principle fitting into the context is to be found in respondent v inland revenue commissioner, ex. P. Preston, 1985 a. c. 835:- "resiling from an undertaking would normally constitute an abuse of power if the con- duct would, if committed by a private body, have given rise to a clear claim for breach of contract or estoppel by representation. " In the instant case, there is no subsequent government order abrogating the order under Annexure-D in order to deny relief to the petitioner. " In the instant case, there is no subsequent government order abrogating the order under Annexure-D in order to deny relief to the petitioner. It is to be clearly understood that the government order under Annexure-D is binding not only on the state but also on the b. d a. None of the respondents has disclosed satisfactory or convincing rationale to justify the exclusion of the petitioner from the solemn undertaking. The circumstance which compels acceptance is that the petitioner fulfills all conditions of eligibility envisaged in the said government order dated 30-4-1987. Of considerable relevance is the detrimental reliance placed by the petitioner on the said government order which in my opinion, rules out executive immunity. The presumption which can be reasonably drawn from the said government order is that it guarantees fair and equal treatment to all the 128 societies including the petitioner. The understanding ought to be that the benefit which the petitioner is claiming is a consequence of the government order. What is surprising is that despite several representations of the petitioner, the response was disappointing belying the trite saying, "squeaking wheel gets the oil". The essence of rationalism is after all the imposition of a uniform condition of perfection upon human conduct with the state being no exception in its relations with a person. The petitioner is further supported by a legitimate expectation created by an express promise held out in the government order that a substantial benefit or advantage would be either conferred or continued. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the beleaguered petitioner is entitled to reliefs sought. To take any other view in the facts and circumstances of the case would be irrational. ( 20 ) ANOTHER significant aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that in the course of the implementation of the said government Order, acquisition proceedings were dropped in respect of lands relating to several other co-operative societies. This is discernible in Annexures-G, H, J and K produced by the petitioner. Annexure-G relates to Sri Sathyanarayana Gruha nirmana sahakara sangha limited deleting the concerned survey numbers from the scheme of acquisition of the B. D. A. and the said order was passed on 7-12-1987 according approval for the formation of private layout in sy. Nos. 161/1, 169/2, 171, 172/1 and 173 of laggere village, yeshwanthpur hobli, Bangalore north taluk. Annexure-G relates to Sri Sathyanarayana Gruha nirmana sahakara sangha limited deleting the concerned survey numbers from the scheme of acquisition of the B. D. A. and the said order was passed on 7-12-1987 according approval for the formation of private layout in sy. Nos. 161/1, 169/2, 171, 172/1 and 173 of laggere village, yeshwanthpur hobli, Bangalore north taluk. Similar is the order in Annexure-H in respect of defence employees' housing co-operative society limited, the lands being situate both in kothihosahalli village and kodigehalli village, Bangalore north taluk. This order was also passed on 7-12-1987. Similar is the order passed in Annexure-J in respect of Mysore income tax department co-operative housing society Ltd. , Bangalore. All these orders were passed on the same date which is 7-12-1987. It is difficult to accept the objections raised by the respondents and equally difficult to reject the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that there is invidious discrimination adversely affecting the petitioner in the matter of application of the government order under Annexure-D in violation of Article 14 of the constitution. I am of the opinion that there is hostile discrimination against the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to equal and similar treatment as meted out to those societies referred to above. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the direction issued by the state government under Annexure-D by deleting the lands in question from the scheme of acquisition of the B. D. A. ( 21 ) IN the light of the disputed questions of fact in regard to the locus standi which requires investigation which is impermissible under Article 226 of the Constitution and particularly since the question is under direct consideration in the civil suit which is pending before the civil court in O. S. No. 119 of 1991, it would not be feasible for me to probe into the question of locus standi. However, it is possible to observe that the petitioner being the executive director of the society is competent to act on behalf and in the larger interest of the society as the executive director when there is dereliction of duty or indifference displayed towards the interest of the society and its members on the part of any other competent officer appointed in accordance with law. In this context, it may be said that the welfare of the society is of paramount consideration in so far as its members are concerned to the extent their legitimate interests are involved. ( 22 ) THE government order on which relianceis placed by the petitioner came to be issued on 30-4-1987 and the writ petition was filed on 10-8-1987. It is not possible to accept the contention that the writ petition is barred by laches. It is relevant to notice that the petitioner is seeking support from the government order for deletion of the lands in question from the scheme of acquisition and it would be inaccurate to say that the acquisition proceeding as such is under challenge. ( 23 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and is, therefore, allowed. A mandamus is hereby issued directing respon- dents-2 and 3 to refrain from passing any awards in respect of sy. Nos. 16, 18 and 19 of gerahally village in Bangalore north taluk as well as sy. Nos. 101, 103/1, 103/2, 104/1, 105 and 106 of hosakerehally village in Bangalore south taluk. Respondent-2 is further directed to drop the acquisition proceedings in favour of the petitioner society in so far as they relate to sy. Nos. 16,18 and 19 of gerahally village and sy. Nos. 101, 103/1,103/2,104/1,105 and 106 of hosakerehally village and consistent with the said directions the Bangalore development authority shall make alterations in the scheme under Section 19 (4) of the Bangalore development authority Act, 1976. ( 24 ) IN view of the change in law, the respondents are further directed to consider the case of the petitioner society for acquisition of the above lands in question for the benefit of the petitioner society and for delivery of the same to the petitioner society expeditiously. ( 25 ) THE order of this court shall be implemented within two months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. --- *** --- .