R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the orders rejecting the application under section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and the order passed in appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that under section 21 the State Government is under an obligation to declare the land not to be excess and allow the person to hold the land in accordance with the scheme approved by the authorities specified by the Government. It is submitted that under such scheme the land is to be utilised for the construction of a dwelling wait for accommodation of a weaker section of the society and once there is such a genuine application in accordance with the approved scheme the land holder has got a right to hold such excess land and the Government is duty bound to permit such land holder to continue to hold such excess land under section 21 of the Act. ( 2 ) IT is not possible to uphold this contention that there is any right in the land holder and that there is any obligation on the Government to permit such land holder to continue to hold such excess land. The use of the word may in section 21 clearly gives discretion to the authority. It provides that competent authority may after making such inquiry as it thinks fit xxxxx. It is thus clear that the competent authority has the discretion while exercising powers under section 21 of the Act. ( 3 ) IN the present case the petitioners application has been negatived on the ground that the land is required by Posts and Telegraphs Department for construction of a post office and staff quarters. This is clearly a public purpose. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners application is also for public purpose for providing accommodation to the weaker section of the society and such a public purpose cannot be defeated by another public purpose. ( 5 ) IN the case of Narayanbhai Rambhai vs. State of Gujarat 1985 GLR 531 a similar question was decided in the context of section 20. ( 5 ) IN the case of Narayanbhai Rambhai vs. State of Gujarat 1985 GLR 531 a similar question was decided in the context of section 20. There also it was contended that the petitioners themselves wanted to utilise the land for public purpose by enabling Co-operative society members of the weaker section of public to put up residential houses and that argument was negative by staling that it was neither here nor there and it was further observed that the excess land would get subjected to the disposal as laid down in the Act and it would be obviously for a public purpose and that would form part of the common pool and that would benefit the society at large. These observations are pertinent and applicable while considering an application under section 21 also. That should guide the discretion of the competent authority. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that section 21 does not give any discretion to the authority and therefore guidelines issued by the Government for guiding such so called discretion are contrary to section 21 of the Act. I have already held that there is ample discretion in the competent authority to grant or refuse the application and for guiding such discretion if the Government has issued any directions under section 35 of the Act they are clearly binding to the competent authority. Section 35 of the Act reads as under:-"the State Government may issue such orders and directions of a general character as it my consider necessary in respect of any matter relating to the powers and duties of the competent authority and thereupon the competent authority shall give effect to such orders and directions". The State Government has issued orders and circulars pointing out that if the land is required for any public purpose the application under section 21 can be refused. From this circular it is clear that it is within the powers of the Government and in consistent with section 21 of the Act. The authority has therefore rightly exercised the discretion in refusing the application of the petitioners in view of the other public purpose of construction of a post office and staff quarters. ( 7 ) IT is also submitted that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing before the competent authority. The authority has therefore rightly exercised the discretion in refusing the application of the petitioners in view of the other public purpose of construction of a post office and staff quarters. ( 7 ) IT is also submitted that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing before the competent authority. This point was also negatived by the appellate authority observing that the appellants were given adequate opportunity to represent their case before the appellate Tribunal. It was observed that there is no question of personal hearing in view of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of S. M. Choksi vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 1735 of 1985. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion there is no merit in this petition and the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief vacated. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed. .