A. J. SADASHIVA, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH this petition is listed for preliminary hearing, the same is heard on merits and disposed of by this Order, with the consent of. the learned counsel appearing on both the sides and on issuing rule. ( 2 ) WHETHER the government has authority of law to cancel the allotment made by the Bangalore development authority under Rule 5 of the Bangalore development authority (allotment of sites) rules, 1984 for short 'the rules' is the question in controversy in this petition. ( 3 ) RULE 5 of the rules authorises the Bangalore development authority, hereinafter called 'the b. d. a. ' to dispose of stray sites in accordance with the guidelines issued by the government. the said Rule reads thus. "5. Allotment of stray sites: the Bangalore development authority shall dispose of stray sites in accordance with the guidelines issued by the government". ( 4 ) BY circular dated October 17, 1992, the state government issued revised guidelines for the disposal of stray sites as provided under Rule 5 of the rules. The circular reads as under:-"government of karnataka (housing and urban development department) No. Hud 616 mnx 89 Karnataka government secretariat, m. s. building, Bangalore, dated 17th october, 1992. circular sub: revised guidelines for the allotment of stray sites by the Bangalore development authority. ref: circular No. Hud 616 mnx 89, dated 18-09-1989 and 23-9-89. The circular reads as under:-"government of karnataka (housing and urban development department) No. Hud 616 mnx 89 Karnataka government secretariat, m. s. building, Bangalore, dated 17th october, 1992. circular sub: revised guidelines for the allotment of stray sites by the Bangalore development authority. ref: circular No. Hud 616 mnx 89, dated 18-09-1989 and 23-9-89. in supersession of circular No. Hud 616 mnx 86, dated 18-9-1989, the following revised guidelines for the disposal of stray sites are issued as provided under Rule 5 of the Bangalore development authority (allotment of sites) rules, 1984: a. Disposal by auction : 40% b. Persons who have won special recognition in the field of art, science, literature, sports, education, medicine, social services and public administration at the state/ national/international levels: 20% c. Senior officers of the government of karnataka/ government of India in the rank/pay scale of a secretary to the state government/government of India or above, defence service officers of the rank of deputy general or equivalent and above and others who have won gallantary awards, and judges of the high court/supreme Court: 15% d. Government of karnataka/government of india organisations/bodies of a non-commercial nature and registered charitable associations/societies/trusts (with at least 5 years standing) for civic amenity purposes: 05% e. Freedom fighters who are residents of Bangalore for a period of not less than 10 years: 05% f. Dependents of Karnataka government servants when the latter is killed during the performance of his duty: 05% g. Under the discretion of the authority for deserving persons: 10% 'art' in category 'b' includes painting, sculpture, music, dance, drama, films, etc. 2. The allotment of stray sites under category 'd' for civic amenity purposes should be made on the basis of civic amenities actually required for a particular locality. In the case of allotment to private organisations, allotment should be made only to organisations of at least 5 (five) years standing who have a good reputation. 3. 2. The allotment of stray sites under category 'd' for civic amenity purposes should be made on the basis of civic amenities actually required for a particular locality. In the case of allotment to private organisations, allotment should be made only to organisations of at least 5 (five) years standing who have a good reputation. 3. In the case of allotment of stray sites to individuals, a stray site shall be allotted to a person only if: (i) he is not a minor; (ii) he is domiciled in Karnataka for not less than 10 years immediately prior to the date of his application; (iii) he or any member of his family does not own a site or a house in Bangalore metropolitan area and has not been allotted a site or a house by the b. d. a. or by any other authority within the Bangalore metropolitan area; and (iv) he satisfies the authority that he or she is in a reasonable position to put up a residential house or other building on the site allotted within a period of three years from the date of handing over possession of the site in question. 4. The requirement of 10 years domicile may be relaxed: (i) in case of persons who are domiciled in the state of Karnataka but are in the armed forces of the union and serving outside the state of karnataka. (ii) in the case of persons who are domiciled in the state of Karnataka but have gone outside the state for employment, business, studies or training and who bona fide intend to reside in the Bangalore metropolitan area; and (iii) with the prior permission of the state government in the case of persons under categories 'b' and 'c' in para 1 above. 5. The stray sites may be allotted by a committee consisting of the chairman, Bangalore development authority, commissioner, Bangalore development authority, commissioner, Bangalore city corporation and two other members of the authority. The allotment shall be subject to final approval of the authority. 6. The selling price of the stray sites shall be fixed at 10% above the current allotment rates of the" Bangalore development authority under its normal rules. 7. The list of stray sites available shall be compiled by the secretary, Bangalore development authority, layout- wise and dimension-wise and got approved by the authority, at least once in a year. 6. The selling price of the stray sites shall be fixed at 10% above the current allotment rates of the" Bangalore development authority under its normal rules. 7. The list of stray sites available shall be compiled by the secretary, Bangalore development authority, layout- wise and dimension-wise and got approved by the authority, at least once in a year. If a stray site reserved for categories 'b' to 'c' in para 1 above cannot be disposed off to a person in these categories in accordance with these guidelines within a period of one year from the date of its inclusion in the stray sites list approved by the authority, it shall also be disposed off by public auction as soon as possible thereafter. sd- (s. Ashok) deputy secretary to government, housing and urban development department". ( 5 ) THE petitioner is stated to be a business man residing in a rented house in Bangalore for over 20 years. It is his case that, his repeated attempts to secure an allotment of site at the hands of the b. d. a. since failed, made an application dated October 28, 1992 to the then chairman of b. d. a. requesting for allotment of a site in his discretionary quota and the chairman appeared to have considered his application and accorded sanction for allotment of a site. Accordingly, the petitioner was informed of allotment of site No. 702, sarakki iii phase, by letter of allotment dated November 19, 1992, informing the petitioner that he was allotted the aforesaid site at a cost of Rs. 1,66,220/ -. the petitioner deposited the sum of Rs. 1,66,220/- as demanded. the petitioner instead of receiving possession certificate received a show-cause notice dated September 14, 1993 issued by the government as per Annexure-D calling upon him to show the cause as to why the allotment of site made in his favour should not be cancelled for the allotment has been made in violation of the guidelines issued by the government. The petitioner filed his objections. The state government after considering the objections issued an endorsement dated may 29, 1995 informing the petitioner that the allotment made in his favour is cancelled for want of reasonable cause to accord approval to the allotment. The petitioner filed his objections. The state government after considering the objections issued an endorsement dated may 29, 1995 informing the petitioner that the allotment made in his favour is cancelled for want of reasonable cause to accord approval to the allotment. it is also mentioned in the impugned endorsement that the allotment of site made by the b. d. a. under its discretionary quota has no reasonable basis, ( 6 ) THE petitioner having been aggrieved by the endorsement filed this petition for quashing the same and for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to disturb the allotment made in his favour. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the site in question is not yet handed over to the possession of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the allotment is made not in pursuance of any notification inviting applications for allotment of a site under any scheme. The petitioner appeared to have made an application to the chairman requesting him to allot a stray site in his discretionary quota. Rule 5 of the rules prescribes that the stray sites shall be allotted in accordance with the guidelines issued by the government. In supersession of all earlier circulars, the state government issued a circular dated october 17, 1992 providing guidelines to the b. d. a. for allotment of stray sites. From the circular, the relevant portion of which is extracted above, it is seen that no discretionary power is vested or conferred upon the chairman to allot any stray site. However, the authority is vested with the discretionary power to allot 10% of the stray sites. From the papers produced by the petitioner it is not possible to infer with reasonable accuracy whether the site in question was allotted by the chairman or by the authority. It is submitted by Smt. Shobha patil, the learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 that it is the allotment made by the chairman and not by the authority. It is the contention of Smt. shobha patil that the allotment has been made in total disregard of the guidelines issued by the state government. It is submitted by Smt. Shobha patil, the learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 that it is the allotment made by the chairman and not by the authority. It is the contention of Smt. shobha patil that the allotment has been made in total disregard of the guidelines issued by the state government. It appears from the dates mentioned in the order and the show- cause notice that this site was allotted by the chairman who was appointed by the government who was about to relinquish the office and the new government constituted issued the show- cause notice, of course as stated by the learned high court government advocate, after noticing the grave illegalities committed in respect of the allotment of stray sites. Whatever may be the reason but the fact remains that the ultimate sufferers are the persons who applied for allotment of stray sites. in the case on hand the petitioner with the hope of securing the site deposited Rs. 1,66,220/- on November 28, 1992 and was told by the government on may 29, 1995, nearly after 31/2 years that the allotment has been cancelled as the same has been made in violation of the guidelines. In these circumstances, it is not possible to decide as to who is at fault. The authorities vested with power to take such steps for orderly development of the city and allotment of sites in pursuance of their scheme have failed miserably to satisfy the minimum requirements expected of such statutory authorities. It is very unfortunate that such a situation is allowed to continue year after year without taking any serious note as to how such things could be remedied. ( 8 ) THE main contention of Sri arun ponnappa, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, the state government has no authority of law to cancel the allotment made by the b. d. a. neither the learned high court government Advocate nor the learned counsel for the b. d. a. are able to point out any provision under the Bangalore development authority act under which the state government has exercised the power and cancelled the allotment made by the b. d. a. . A faint attempt was made to bring this case within the purview. of Section 63 of the Bangalore development authority Act, 1976 \vhich in my considered view is not applicable to the allotment at all. A faint attempt was made to bring this case within the purview. of Section 63 of the Bangalore development authority Act, 1976 \vhich in my considered view is not applicable to the allotment at all. Section 63 of the b. d. a. act deals with the revisional powers of the government against any order made in any proceeding. allotment of a site either by chairman or by authority is not a proceeding and therefore, Section 63 is not attracted. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the state government that it invoked Section 63 to cancel the allotment. ( 9 ) IT is no doubt true that Section 65 of the act empowers the government to issue such directions to the authority as in its opinion are necessary for carrying out the purposes of the act and it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with such directions. ( 10 ) THE impugned endorsement is, obviously, not issued by the government in exercise of its power vested under Section 65 of the act. It is not a direction to the b. d. a. but an order cancelling the allotment made by the b. d. a. there is no provision under the b. d. a. act empowering the state government to cancel the allotment of a site made by the b. d. a. and therefore the impugned endorsement is without authority of law. ( 11 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. the endorsement dated may 29, 1995 issued by the second respondent cancelling the allotment of stray site made by b. d. a. in favour of the petitioner is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take such action as allowed in law in respect of the allotment of stray sites, if they are so advised. ( 12 ) IN the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. ( 13 ) SMT. Bharathi nagesh, the learned high court government advocate, is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks. --- *** --- .