H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) OFFICE reports that respondents have been served. The respondents in this writ petition appear to have been served. On behalf of the Commissioner, bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore appearance has been filed by Sri N. K. Patil. Notice had been served on the respondents in the first week of September 1997. No counter affidavit has been filed. ( 2 ) THE petitioner's case is that the petitioner applied for allotment of residential site and site No. L-97, in Section No. 6, Agara, Hosur Sarjapura road, Bangalore was allotted in the name of petitioner i. e. , petitioner, petitioner's husband and her daughter jointly. Thereafter an agreement of sale was entered with respondent 1 on 28-6-1991 and possession was handed over to the petitioner-allottees on 16-9-1991. It so happened that one of the joint owner-allottees Sri C. N. Patil died and the site stood in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that there were many beneficiaries and no basic amenities were available and were provided. There was no drainage, and there has been no proper formation of layout. All vehicles including two wheelers could not enter into the layout. Entire layout had been filled with garbage and other waste materials and under such circumstances, the petitioner could not take up construction work. Petitioner's case is that a publication came in Deccan Herald No. BDA/commissioner/182/96-97, dated 28-11-1996, to the effect that allottees who have not constructed houses within the stipulated period of 3 years from the date of taking possession of the site, a penalty has been imposed on them. Petitioner's case is that he made a representation to the first respondent, stating reasons as to why he could not put up the construction and sought for extension of time. Petitioner's case is that without disposing off and considering the petitioner's application, respondent 1 issued endorsement calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 33,444/- towards the penalty for extension of time, vide Endorsements Annexures-F and G dated 21-2-1997. In such circumstances, the petitioner in the absence of any remedy has come up before this Court. Petitioner's case is that without disposing off and considering the petitioner's application, respondent 1 issued endorsement calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 33,444/- towards the penalty for extension of time, vide Endorsements Annexures-F and G dated 21-2-1997. In such circumstances, the petitioner in the absence of any remedy has come up before this Court. ( 3 ) ONE of the grounds taken in the petition is that apart from absence of necessary facilities which were needed in order to enable the petitioner to complete the construction, the penalty on the allottees for noncompliance of the terms of the agreement to complete the construction within 3 years has been passed without the petitioner being provided opportunity of hearing and showing cause, the petitioner's case as such is that the order impugned is illegal and bad. She has prayed for quashng of the order of penalty and for direction to the respondents to provide basic civic amenities to the layout of the petitioner site. ( 4 ) NO counter affidavit has been filed by the parties. ( 5 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Suman Hegde, and learned Government Pleader Sri M. H. Ibrahim, and Sri N. K. Patil for the respondents. ( 6 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order Annexure-E is per se illegal and without jurisdiction as well as is in violation of the provisions of law and principles of natural justice and fair play, as such it should be quashed. Petitioner also prayed that they may be allowed time to complete the construction and authorities be directed to provide layout etc. , for material being taken for raising the construction. Annexure-E appears to be an order of general nature, which appears to have been passed by the Commissioner, Bangalore development Authority vide Annexure-G Notice dated 21-2-1997. Peti tioner has been required to deposit a sum of Rs. 33,444/- as penalty for not having raised the construction. It appears Annexure-G has been issued in pursuance of Annexure-E. Annexure-E may be quoted as under. Peti tioner has been required to deposit a sum of Rs. 33,444/- as penalty for not having raised the construction. It appears Annexure-G has been issued in pursuance of Annexure-E. Annexure-E may be quoted as under. PUBLIC NOTICE"the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board and the bangalore Development Authority had been allotting residential sites with the condition that the allottees shall construct buildings within a period of 3 years from the date of execution of lease-Cum-Sale Agreement, it has, however, been noticed that in a large number of cases the allottees have not constructed houses but have left the sites vacant for long periods. This results in the growth of weeds in such sites and also in the sites being misused for unauthorised purposes, dumping garbage etc. , thereby causing nuisance to the residents in the nearby areas. Many such sites are vacant for 15 to 25 years. This also shows that the allottees were not in real need of residential sites in Bangalore but applied for and secured sites as an investment for gaining profit therefrom. The Bangalore Development Authority has been considering the need for instituting suitable measures to enforce the condition of construction of residential building within the stipulated time limits. With a view to compelling the allottees to construct buildings without delay, the Authority in its meeting held on 3-9-1996 has decided to levy penalty which is indicated below, when the allottees approach Bangalore Development Authority, seeking extension of time for construction of building or for execution of absolute Sale Deed, from 1-12-1996. I. For extension of time beyond 3 years: (a) For sites measuring 20'x 30' and below penalty of Rs. 1,000/- for each completed year, beyond the prescribed period of 3 years. (b) For sites measuring more than 20' x 30' penalty at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. mtr. for each completed year, beyond the prescribed period of 3 years. II. For issue of absolute sale deed for vacant sites after completion of the 10 years lease period: (a) For sites measuring 20' x 30' and below. In addition to the penalty vide l (a) above, penalty at Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. for the total area. (b) For sites measuring more than 20' x 30' in addition to the penalty vide Kb) above, penalty at Rs. 250/- per sq. mtr. for the total area. Sd/- commissioner, bangalore Development Authority, bangalore". In addition to the penalty vide l (a) above, penalty at Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. for the total area. (b) For sites measuring more than 20' x 30' in addition to the penalty vide Kb) above, penalty at Rs. 250/- per sq. mtr. for the total area. Sd/- commissioner, bangalore Development Authority, bangalore". ( 7 ) ANNEXURE-G as mentioned earlier, has been issued in pursuance of Annexure-E. Annexure-G, itself mentions that petitioner was required to pay Rs. 33,444/- as penalty for not having constructed the building within the prescribed period. It mentions it is only if you deposit the penalty the application for extension of time may be considered. A perusal of Annexure-E per se reveals that this decision has been taken in its meeting dated 30-9-1996 to levy the penalty in the ratio indicated in the order, without considering the representation of the petitioner or others for extension of time and it does not appear from the order that any notice was given to the allottees of the site including the petitioner. It is on the basis of this rate of penalty mentioned in it, penalty of Rs. 33,444/- has been demanded from the petitioner vide, Annexure-G, dated 21-2-1997. When the statutory authorities have been constituted under the Act or under the Act certain powers are given to them to allot certain sites, on certain conditions and then provisions have been made for allotment of sites or the like rates prescribed and it has also been provided what is to be done if a person does not comply with one of the conditions, such as taking up of the construction work within the prescribed period, then authorities have got only that power and that power conferred has to be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules made, and that no authority has got power to impose any penalty. ( 8 ) WITH reference to the allotment of sites, the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, have been framed in 1982 and thereafter Rules of 1984 had been imposed, repealing the Rules of 1982. Rule 13 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of sites) Rules, 1984, provides the conditions for allotment and sale of sites. Rule 13 (6) reads as under. Rule 13 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of sites) Rules, 1984, provides the conditions for allotment and sale of sites. Rule 13 (6) reads as under. "the allottee shall construct a building within a period of three years from the date of execution of the agreement or such extended period as the Authority may in any specified case by written order permit. If the building is not constructed within the said period the allotment may, after reasonable notice to the allottee be cancelled, the agreement revoked, the lease determined and the allottee evicted from the site by the Authority and after forfeiting twelve and half per cent (12%) of the value of the site, paid by the allottee, the Authority shall refund the balance to the allottee". ( 9 ) A reading of this Rule 13 (6) very clearly provides that the allottee has to put up the building construction within 3 years from the date of execution of the agreement. From this rule it further emanates that the authority has been conferred power also in genuine cases, keeping in view the basic principle of our Constitutional goals of democracy and the social and economic justice, to extend the period from 3 years and it may permit him to complete the construction within the extended period. Rule 13 (6) further provides that if the allottee fails to construct the building within the aforesaid period of 3 years, or the extended period as the case may be, then the authority has got power to cancel the allotment, but before cancelling, it has to give a reasonable notice to the allottee to show cause and if the cause shown is not sufficient, no doubt it can cancel the allotment and revoke the agreement, determine the lease and evict the allottee from the site, but along with it a duty is again fastened on the authority that when evicting the person from the site, the authority after forfeiting twelve and half per cent of the value of the site, has to refund the balance of the price of the sale consideration, deposited by the allottee, to him. This power is thus very specific, but circumscribed by two conditionsone of giving reasonable notice to the allottee before passing any such order of cancellation of allotment, revocation of agreement and determination of lease and evicting the allottee and the second one is when passing and implementing this order, authority is entitled to deduct or forfeit twelve and half per cent of the total sum deposited by the allottee and rest balance amount it has to refund. No provision has been brought to my notice, which may be said to authorise the Bangalore Devlopment Authority to impose such a penalty, as has been done in the present case. Rule 13 (6) of the Act does not indicate that authority can impose a penalty of the nature that until the penalty amount is paid, extension will not be given. Power to grant extension is given in suitable cases where persons on account of sufficient cause could not be able to put construction within 3 years. Causes may arise from economic weakness or disability of the allottee. Causes may also arise\from the own faults of the Development Authority in not providing facilities such as water facilities, layout facilities etc. , because layout or road in a site is necessary to enable the allottee to take construction material or the vehicle to the site. So there may be many causes, which authorities are expected to consider when it is called upon to cancel the agreement or when it is called upon to extend the period for construction. But without considering the circumstances, without giving reasonable opportunity to the allottee, neither order of cancellation of allotment can be passed, nor agreement can be revoked, nor lease can be determined, nor allottee can be evicted. ( 10 ) THE scheme of Rule 13 (6) of the Allotment of Sites Rules, 1984, envisages that in view of principle of natural justice enshrined in it giving up reasonable notice to the allottee is very essential and without giving such notice no order can be passed. Rule 13 (6) does not confer power to impose any penalty for extension of time. That extension can be granted only on the sufficient or reasonable cause for failure to raise construction within the period of three years being shown and not imposition of any thing such as penalty. Rule 13 (6) does not confer power to impose any penalty for extension of time. That extension can be granted only on the sufficient or reasonable cause for failure to raise construction within the period of three years being shown and not imposition of any thing such as penalty. In this case, penalty has been imposed which is not at all conceived or provided under Rule 13 (6) of the bangalore Development Authority Rules. No specific provision in this regard has been brought to my notice. ( 11 ) IN this view of the matter, it appears that the order contained in Annexures-E and G resolving to impose penalty on the allottees in general, to such category, as well as directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 33,444/- as penalty, without payment of which as per Annexure-G, this application for extension, is not to be considered appear to be illegal, null, void and without jurisdiction. ( 12 ) IN the case of G. S. Ravindra and Others v The Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority and Others, this Court has also held that imposition of penalty without giving opportunity to the allottees to represent their cases has been illegal. ( 13 ) THUS considered in my opinion, the resolution Annexure-E dated 28-11-1996, and the Endorsement No. B-15/hsr-VI/i-97/96-97, dated 21-2-1997, being per se without jurisdiction and illegal, null and void as well being in breach of principle of natural justice have to be and are hereby quashed. Parties are directed to give the petitioner reasonable opportunity of hearing on the matter of her application for extension of time, to show cause why the petitioner could not raise the construction within the time specified and if there is a justification or reasonable cause coming out either from economic disability or otherwise, it is expected authorities will consider the matter sympathetically. Let the respondents consider the petitioner's representation after giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity of hearing as well. In case they reject the petitioner's representation they are expected to pass a speaking reasoned order and to communicate to petitioners. Petition is thus finally disposed off as allowed. --- *** --- .