JUDGMENT 1. Petition seeking the following reliefs: "(i) to call for the records leading to issue of application forms Exts. P-6, P-7, P-8 and P-4 map; (ii) to declare that petitioners are entitled to preferential treatment and reservation in allotment of Shop Bunk belonging to respondents in G. C. D. A. Complex, Marine Drive, near Kinco Jetty; (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus to 2nd respondent to consider the applications of the petitioners (Exts. P-6, P-7 and P-8) received before allotment of shops as per Ext. P-4 map and till then no allotment of bunk shop should be made; (iv) to give a direction to the respondents to reserve 3 bunk shops as per Ext. P-4 and not to allot it till the disposal of the Original Petition; and (v) issue such other and further directions/writs/orders as this Honourable Court may deem just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of this petition." 2. Petitioners are educated unemployed persons belonging to a Scheduled Caste community. Exts. P-1 to P-3 prove that. On knowing that certain bunk shops at Cochin Marine Drive belonging to the Greater Cochin Development Authority (for short 'the G. C. D. A.'), were going to be let out, the petitioners made Exts. P-6 to P-8 applications/tenders for allotment of one shop each to them. Those applications were not considered and the petitioners did not participate in the auction conducted by the G.C.D.A. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to get reservation in the matter of allotment of shops and they are not to participate in competitive tenders or auctions and a different method of allotment is contemplated as far as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe applicants are concerned. 3. The first respondent has filed a counter contending that under R.75 of the Kerala Development Authorities Rules, 1984, the Government had issued directions to the Development Authority and other similar bodies to give effect to the reservation policy and reserve shops etc. to be allotted to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe applicants, and that the G. C. D. A. is bound by those directions. 4. to be allotted to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe applicants, and that the G. C. D. A. is bound by those directions. 4. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed separate counter affidavits contending that the G. C. D. A. is not bound to give reservation to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the Circular or direction given by the Government, that there was no tender in time from the part of the petitioners, that they did not participate in the auction conducted by the G. C. D. A., that the G. C. D. A. is entitled to let out the shop rooms or bunk shops to the best of their advantage for the maximum rent that could be procured, and that the petitioners cannot be given any preferential treatment or reservation. It is also specifically contended that Exts. P-6 to P-8 were belated and for that reason alone, the petitioners, claims are to be rejected. 5. The fourth respondent was additionally impleaded and the fourth respondent did not file any counter affidavit, but the counsel argued for the fourth respondent. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent is that even conceding that the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates are having reservation in the matter of allotment of bunks, the petitioners did not apply in time in response to Exts. R-3(a) and R-3(b) and so, they lost their claims, if at all any. The same argument was advanced by the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 also. 6. Ext. R-3(a) is the tender notification by the G.C.D.A. There, 27 bunk shops which are to be let out are mentioned, indicating the monthly rent, minimum security deposit etc. According to the notification, sealed tenders together with earnest money have to be given before 3 p.m. on 8th November 1994. At 3.30 p.m. there will be an auction and after the auction the tenders will be opened. The higher amount either in the auction or in the tender will be accepted. For further particulars, the prospective applicants were directed to contact the Authority Office at Kadavanthra. 7. Ext. R-3(b) is a correction notification by which the date of auction as well as the time for receiving tenders were postponed. 8. From Exts. P-6 to P-8 it could be seen that the tenders were not received in the G.C.D.A. Office within time. For further particulars, the prospective applicants were directed to contact the Authority Office at Kadavanthra. 7. Ext. R-3(b) is a correction notification by which the date of auction as well as the time for receiving tenders were postponed. 8. From Exts. P-6 to P-8 it could be seen that the tenders were not received in the G.C.D.A. Office within time. The petitioners would contend that with the application/tender forms they approached the Officers of the G.C.D.A., but their applications/tenders were not received by them and that necessitated sending the applications/tenders by registered post and that resulted in the alleged delay. According to them, the G.C.D.A. refused to give them the benefit of reservation and other benefits they are entitled to, and refused to receive the applications/tenders. That aspect of the matter is not quite material since the petitioners were not obliged to give competitive tenders, nor participate in the auction for getting the bunk shops allotted to them. 9. The Greater Cochin Development Authority is a creature of the Town Planning Act. S.53A of the said Act reads: "(1) If the Government decide that the interests of planning and development in any area will be best served by entrusting it to a special authority, they may, by notification in the Gazette, constitute a special authority to be called 'the.................... (name of the area) Development Authority' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') and thereupon the duty of carrying out the provisions of this Act in such area Shall, subject to the conditions and limitations hereinafter contained and those specified in such notification, be rested in the Development Authority." 10. It is an admitted case that the G.C.D.A. was created by virtue of S.53A by a notification by the Government. Rules were enunciated as the Kerala Development Authorities Rules, 1984 for carrying out the purpose of S.53A etc. R.75 of the said Rules reads: "Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, or any other rules, the Government shall have powers to give any direction whatsoever to the Authority and the Authority shall be bound to act as per the directions." "Authority" means any Development Authority constituted for any of the region within the State under this Act. So, the G.C.D.A. is bound to act as per the directions whatsoever given by the Government from time to time. 11. So, the G.C.D.A. is bound to act as per the directions whatsoever given by the Government from time to time. 11. By virtue of the powers vested in the Government under the said Rule, on 1st August 1990 the Government issued a Circular with copies to all concerned. That is marked as Ext. R-1(a) which is filed along with the counter statement of the first respondent State. In unequivocal terms the Circular directs that 10 per cent of the shops in Shopping Complexes belonging to the Development Authorities shall be reserved for allotment to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe applicants. The Circular further says that with respect to such reserved shop rooms and for allotment of such shop rooms the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe applicants need not participate in auctions or give competitive tenders/quotations. The method by which the rent is to be fixed also is indicated in the Circular. If there are more applicants than the available reserved shop rooms, the allotment shall be by taking lots. On 10th May 1991, yet another Circular was issued by the Government by which it is specified that if the available shop rooms in shopping complexes are more than five and less than ten, then one room shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, and if the number of shops are more than ten, then ten per cent shall be reserved for them. For allotting such rooms, if advance rent or deposit is to be .taken, that amount shall not be more than three months' rent of the respective rooms. 12. So, by virtue of Exts. R-1(a) and P-5, the petitioners were not to participate in auction or in competitive tenders or quotations. They are entitled to be allotted shop rooms from the reserved quota in accordance with the terms specified in Ext. R-1(a) and P-5. So it was not incumbent upon the petitioners to make an application pursuant to Exts. R-3(a) and R-3(b) notifications. The notifications are silent about the reservation of shops for allotment to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe applicants. That deficiency was not made good by the G.C.D.A. when the petitioners approached the officers concerned. 13. In the above circumstances, there cannot be a successful contention that the applications by the petitioners were belated and so, there are no subsisting claims. The contention of respondents 2 and 3 that they are not bound by the circulars of the Government is totally unsustainable. 13. In the above circumstances, there cannot be a successful contention that the applications by the petitioners were belated and so, there are no subsisting claims. The contention of respondents 2 and 3 that they are not bound by the circulars of the Government is totally unsustainable. As mentioned earlier, the G.C.D.A. is a creation of S.53A of the Town Planning Act and as per R.75, the 'authority' is bound by any direction given by the Government. The argument of the learned counsel for the G.C.D.A. that only Government orders issued in the name of the Governor have the binding force, is totally unacceptable in the light of what has been stated above. The Statutory Rule (R.75) provides that any direction given by the Government is binding upon the 'Authority', So, Exts. R-1(a) and P-5 are binding upon respondents 2 and 3 and the notifications. Exts. R-3(a) and R-3(b) which are silent about the reservation, cannot take away the rights of the petitioners. 14. It was argued by the learned counsel for the G.C.D.A. that the matter pertains to private law field and not public law domain and so, this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution cannot interfere with the actions of the G.C.D.A. This argument also is totally unacceptable. May be, that the G.C.D.A. has raised funds for high interest to build the Complex and they are entitled to get the maximum profit out of that. But that does not give the G.C.D.A. an instrumentality of the State, right to ignore the principles of reservation to Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes in the matter of allotment of shops as directed by the Government. It may be repeated that the G.C.D.A. is only a creation of S.53A of the Town Planning Act, and the Statutory Rules are binding upon the G.G.D.A. and when the Government gives a direction to observe the principles of reservation in the matter of allotment of shops to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates, the G.G.D.A. cannot ignore that by saying that the matter falls in the private law field. It is settled law that the provisions for reservation for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe communities or Backward Glasses could be made by legislature as well as by the Executive with respect to local bodies or other authorities. 15. It is settled law that the provisions for reservation for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe communities or Backward Glasses could be made by legislature as well as by the Executive with respect to local bodies or other authorities. 15. The above discussion would show that the petitioners who belong to Scheduled Caste community are entitled to reservation in the matter of allotment of bunk shops belonging to the G.G.D.A. There shall be a declaration to that effect. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the applications of petitioners in the light of Exts. R-1(c) and P-5 and make allotment of shops to them in accordance with that. The Original Petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs.