H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Manjula R. Kamadolli and Sri N. K. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent. ( 2 ) BY this petition, petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing Annexure-B to the writ petition i. e. order dated 5-10-1996 whereby the Bangalore Development Authority had cancelled the allotment of shop No. 39/ff in Indiranagar Shopping Complex on the ground of petitioner's failure to deposit the sum of Rs. 5,200/- within the stipulated period of 30 days of allotment. It had also forfeited the initial deposit. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case in the nut-shell are that, the petitioner had applied for the allotment of shop or accommodation at Indiranagar Shopping Complex, Bangalore. She had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as initial deposit and the respondent vide letter dated 19-7-1996 was pleased to intimate her that the shop No. 39/ff had been allotted in her favour. The petitioner was required to deposit 10 months licence fee of Rs. 5,200/- as security deposit within 30 days from the date of receipt of the allotment letter. The petitioner admitted that because of her alleged sickness etc. , she could not make deposit of the sum of Rs. 5,200/- and by letter dated 5-10-1996 (Annexure-B to the writ petition), the allotment order allotting shop No. 39/ff to the petitioner was cancelled on account of her failure to deposit the sum of Rs. 5,200/- within the stipulated period of 30 days and the respondent forfeited the initial deposit of Rs. 1,000/- without giving opportunity to the petitioner. No doubt, petitioner has stated that on 22-7-1997 she had sent a demand draft for Rs. 5,200/- bearing No. 452132 and made an application to call-of the cancellation order and requested the respondent to accept the demand draft. But the respondent did not accept her plea on the ground that the allotment had already been cancelled and returned the demand draft. According to the petitioner, she had written another letter, but of no avail. So petitioner had come up with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the respondent did not accept her plea on the ground that the allotment had already been cancelled and returned the demand draft. According to the petitioner, she had written another letter, but of no avail. So petitioner had come up with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) IT has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that principles of natural justice have been violated by the authorities as they did not give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the cancellation order. So the learned counsel contended that Annexure-B may be quashed and the authorities may be directed to allot shop No. 39/ff in B. D. A. Shopping Complex at Indiranagar to the petitioner when the fresh allotments are going to be made on the initial deposit of Rs. 1,000/- which had been paid by the petitioner and which had been forfeited by the respondent. ( 5 ) THIS contention of the petitioner has been hotly contested by the learned counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority Sri N. K. Patil. ( 6 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties. It is one of the trite principles of law that when a procedure has been prescribed under the Rules and the Act for exercise of certain powers which had been conferred, the procedure and mode prescribed for exercise of power under the Act should be followed. The Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Buildings) Rules, 1982 prescribed the necessary procedure relating to eligibility, registration, application for allotment and also prescribed the mode of allotment as well as the principles for allotment which is dealt under Rule 8. Rule 8 provides and specifies how the building will be allotted among the different classes of persons in the order as indicated under Rule 8. Rule 9 provides and reads as under :-"9. Mode of payment :- (i) The applicant shall pay 25% of the notified cost of buildings excluding the amount paid as registration fee as initial deposit at the time of filing the application. Rule 9 provides and reads as under :-"9. Mode of payment :- (i) The applicant shall pay 25% of the notified cost of buildings excluding the amount paid as registration fee as initial deposit at the time of filing the application. (ii) The allottee shall pay, out of the balance - (a) 25% of the cost of the building within 90 days from the date of allotment and another 25% within 90 days thereafter; and (b) the last instalment of 25% together with any amount payable on account of escalation before executing the Lease-cum-Sale agreement. (iii) The demand-cum-allotment order issued will indicate the prescribed date by which the payment will be required to be made as per above schedule except the last instalment. It will be obligatory on the allottee to make the payment within the due dates indicated therein. In the event of default, the allocation of the scheme will be cancelled without any prior intimation. "thus, Rule 9 deals with the mode of payment and Rule 10 deals with conditions of allotment. Rule 10 reads as under :-"10. Conditions of allotment :- (i) After the payments under the above sub-rules are made, the authority shall call upon the allottee to execute lease-cum-sale agreement in Form-III and thereafter the execution of such agreement by the allottee and the authority, the same shall be got registered by the allottee. If the agreement is not executed within 45 days, after the Authority has intimated the allottee to execute such agreement, the allotment of the building shall be cancelled and the amounts paid by the allottee towards the allotment of the building, shall after deducting the initial deposit be refunded to him. (ii) Until the building is conveyed to the allottee, the amount paid by the allottee for the allotment of the building shall be held by the Authority as security deposit for the due performance of the terms and conditions of the allotment and the lease-cum-sale agreement entered into between the authority and the allottee. (iii) The building allotted under these rules shall be deemed to have been leased to the allottee until the lease is determined or the building is conveyed to the allottee under these rules. The allottee shall, during the period of lease pay a rent/lease amount at the rate specified by the Authority from time to time. (iii) The building allotted under these rules shall be deemed to have been leased to the allottee until the lease is determined or the building is conveyed to the allottee under these rules. The allottee shall, during the period of lease pay a rent/lease amount at the rate specified by the Authority from time to time. " ( 7 ) A reading of Rules 9 and 10 per se reveals that no doubt applicant is required to pay 25% of the notified cost of the building excluding the amount paid as registration fee, as initial deposit at the time of filing of the application. Rule requires that the allottee shall pay out of the balance 25% of the cost of the building within 90 days from the date of allotment and another 25% within 90 days thereafter i. e. , after the expiry of 90th day from the date of allottment he will get further period of 90 days for making payment of instalment of 25% of the cost of Building Clause (b) of Rule 9 (ii) provides that the last instalment of 25% together with any amount payable on account of escalation before executing the lease-cum-sale agreement. Rule 9 (iii) provides and makes it obligatory on the allottee to make payment on or within the due dates as indicated in the demand-cum-allotment order, and in the event of default, the allocation of the scheme will be cancelled without any prior intimation. Rule 10 (i) per se reveals the procedure for execution of the registered agreement of lease-cum-sale agreement in Form-III, within 45 days from the date of intimation to allottee to execute the agreement. Rule 10 (ii) provides that until the building is conveyed to the allottee, the amount paid by the allottee for allotment of the building shall be held by the authority as security deposit for the due performance of the terms and conditions of allotment and the lease-cum-sale agreement entered into between the authority and the allottee. Rule 10 (iii) provides that the building allotted under these rules shall be deemed to have been leased to the allottee until the lease is determined or the building is conveyed to the allottee under these rules. It also provided that during the period of lease allottee should pay rent/lease amount at the rate specified by the authority from time to time. It also provided that during the period of lease allottee should pay rent/lease amount at the rate specified by the authority from time to time. No doubt, Rule 11 provides for delivery of possession on the expiry of a period of ten years from the date of lease deed and if the allotment has not been cancelled and the lease has not been determined in accordance with the rules or the terms of the agreement, the authority shall by notice call upon the allottee to get the sale deed of the building executed at his own cost within the time specified in such notice. The definition of building under Rule 2 includes a flat, room or shop under agreement of lease which is stated to have been made under these rules. No doubt, in the notice 30 days time has been provided for depositing the amount. Even if Rule 9 is applied which is applicable to deposit of the balance of cost of the building i. e. , the cost of the shop allotted has to be deposited within 180 days from the date of allotment but the petitioner failed to deposit. Really it was obligatory on part of the allottee to make payment by or within the due periods or dates as indicated. Really the authority should have called-upon the petitioner to deposit the cost of the commercial shop allotted to her and should have specified the due dates. Any way, it has been cancelled and when more than one year's time has passed and the amount has not been deposited, the authority were bound to cancel the allotment and they were not to give any opportunity to the petitioner to make payment as the rule says, i. e. rule 9 (iii) says,"in the event of default, the allocation of the scheme will be cancelled without any prior intimation. "this rule does not provide for forfeiture of the amount, for default in making the deposit of instalment nor any rule has been shown for forfeiture in such a case. Looking to this scheme, the rule no doubt provides a power on the authority to cancel the allotment in the event of default. The authorities, no doubt, were justified in cancelling the allotment which had been made in favour of the petitioner. But no rule has been shown to me which authorise the authority to forfeit the deposit of Rs. Looking to this scheme, the rule no doubt provides a power on the authority to cancel the allotment in the event of default. The authorities, no doubt, were justified in cancelling the allotment which had been made in favour of the petitioner. But no rule has been shown to me which authorise the authority to forfeit the deposit of Rs. 1,000/ -. ( 8 ) IN such circumstances, it appears just and proper to dismiss this petition. So far as cancellation of allotment is concerned, the authority had acted with jurisdiction. When the applications for fresh allotment of this shop is called-for, the petitioner may be allowed to bid afresh and the initial deposit made by her may be taken into consideration as initial deposit for the application to be made under the new notification. But the notification should be made keeping in view the rules of 1982. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of. The order of cancellation is maintained. But the forfeiture of amount is cancelled. It is expected that the authority may consider the application of the petitioner if the circumstances are shown in a symathetic way. Petition is finally disposed of. Relief of quashing Annexure-B is rejected subject to the observations made above. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .