R. P. SETHI, J. ( 1 ) STANDING in the dock before us in this litigation are the Legislators, the representatives of the people. Charge against them is the usurpation of public largesse. Means adopted to benefit themselves are alleged to be their position in the society and proclaimed immunity from the purview of the Judicial process. The State largesse allegedly accumulated is in the shape of landed property in the city of Bangalore. Conferment of benefit is by the Bangalore Development Authority allegedly at the instance of the State Government. Law makers have been termed to be the law breakers. Violations alleged are that of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, Rules and Orders issued thereunder. Put at test is the judicial process and the prayers made are for the establishment of the supremacy of law. ( 2 ) ). The petitioner, an advocate of this Court being a social activist has ignitioned the mechanism of judicial redressal of grievances by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in public interest. He has prayed for the issuance of writ of certiorari or any other direction for quashing the out of turn allotments made in favour of present and former Member of Parliaments and State Legislatures including Ministers. He has further prayed for quashing the permission granted to such Legislators authorising them to sell the sites illegally allotted to them. It is further prayed that the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter called the 'authority') be directed to resume the sites allotted in favour of the Legislators, free from all encumbrances in exercise of the powers vesting in it under Rule 14 (c) of the B. D. A. (Allotment of Sites), 1984 (hereinafter called the allotment rules ). The petitioner has further prayed for directing the Central Bureau of Investigation, to conduct enquiry against the erring officials responsible for irregular allotments and grant of permission for selling the sites issued in favour of the Legislators. ( 3 ) IT is submitted that the authority has been constituted for the development of the City of Bangalore and the areas adjacent thereto and for matters connected there with. The authority has the power to undertake works and incur expenditure for the development of Bangalore Metropolitan Area in the manner prescribed under the Act. It is further obliged to formulate development schemes for that purpose. The authority has the power to undertake works and incur expenditure for the development of Bangalore Metropolitan Area in the manner prescribed under the Act. It is further obliged to formulate development schemes for that purpose. The Government has the power to require the authority to take up any development scheme or work and execute it subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Government. In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 69 of the Act, the Government of Karnataka have made the allotment rules vide Notification No. HUD 622 MNX 83 dated 18th August, 1984. The rules provide the procedure and the method of making allotment of sites to the individuals and institutions eligible of allotment under Rule 10 thereon. It is contended that more than 80,000 persons have been registered, after deposits of amounts in terms of the Rules, for the purpose of allotment of sites of various sizes in response to the Notifications issued by the authority. The number of seekers of sites is increasing every day and such applicants are stated to be standing in the long serpent queue waiting for their turn of getting a site for provision of shelter to their family members. Allegedly overlooking the interests of needy and deserving applicants, the respondent authority is stated to have carved out means and methods for providing sites to the present and former M. L. As, M. Ps and Ministers apparently with oblique motives and mala fide designs. It is contended that most of such Legislators have their own sites in the City of Bangalore and those coming from outside, not having their own accommodation are provided cheaply, homely and commodious accommodation at the Legislators Homes. Many of the Legislators are alleged to be in permanent occupation of the accommodation in the State Legislature Homes. There was, therefore no necessity of providing any site for building houses in the City of Bangalore by such already benefitted Legislators. The allotments are stated to have been made completely in disregard to the Constitutional Provisions and the Statutory obligations. Specific reference is made to Rules 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Allotment Rules which are stated to have been violated while making the allotments in favour of the Legislators. The action of the respondent authority has been termed to be arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and motivated by extraneous considerations. Specific reference is made to Rules 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Allotment Rules which are stated to have been violated while making the allotments in favour of the Legislators. The action of the respondent authority has been termed to be arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and motivated by extraneous considerations. Respondents No. 1 to 3 who are the trustees of the public properties are accused of being responsible and contributory not only to the breach of trust but also misappropriation of the public property. It is submitted that most of the allottees claiming to be representatives of the people, have plundered the public property by filing wrong affidavits and making factually wrong submissions for the purposes of getting permissions to sell their sites during the lease period in the open market by sale of sites for value rising upto Rs. 3. 00 Lakhs on each case. The sites are stated to have been procured by allotment only for the purposes of being sold and with the object of inflating the money bags of the aforesaid Legislators by the misuse of their position and the confidence reposed in them by the poor and down-trodden electorate of that State. ( 4 ) THE petition was originally filed against some of the former Legislators impleaded as party Respondents Nos. 5 to 38. During the pendency of the writ petition, it was pointed out that the sites were allotted to the Legislators by the Legislators Housing Co-operative Society, Bangalore. The aforesaid society was noticed and impleaded as party respondent No. 39 vide Court Order dated 9th March, 1998. The Society was notified with direction to file detailed statement of objections intimating the allotment made by it from the date of its inception till date. As some of the persons originally impleaded as respondents were found to be not Legislators, the petitioner filed a memo with prayer of deleting them. Consequently, respondent Nos. 6, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35 and 36 were deleted from the array of the respondents vide Court Order dated 27-8-1998. ( 5 ) IN their objections, the respondent No. 1 and 2 have submitted that the sites were allotted to M. L. As, M. L. Cs. , and M. Ps. Consequently, respondent Nos. 6, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35 and 36 were deleted from the array of the respondents vide Court Order dated 27-8-1998. ( 5 ) IN their objections, the respondent No. 1 and 2 have submitted that the sites were allotted to M. L. As, M. L. Cs. , and M. Ps. by Legislators House Building Co-operative Society and the Bangalore Development Authority in the usual course of business, strictly in accordance with law and after complying with all necessary formalities. Sites are stated to have not been allotted out of turn as alleged. As some of the allottees were not in a position to put up construction due to old age and some were suffering from serious diseases like Cancer, many of them being under financial constraints represented to the Government for permission to alienate the sites allotted to them. The Government claims to have taken compassionate view of the matter and accorded permission under Rule 14 (3) of the Allotment Rules to sell sites/buildings and in that process the Government claims to have not suffered any loss. It is contended that in the process of according permissions, both the State and the Bangalore Development Authority were benefitted on account of collection of stamp duty and penalty. The State Ex-chequer is reported to have not suffered any loss. ( 6 ) JUSTIFYING its actions, the respondent authority in its statement of objections has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this petition in public interest. It is further submitted that as the petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches, the same was liable to be dismissed. Respondent No. 39, society is stated to have approached the respondent authority for allotment of sites to its Members. The request of the society had been forwarded to the authority by the Government on 1st January, 1981. The respondent authority vide its resolution No. 272 dated 2nd April 1981 is stated to have resolved to allot several sites to the members of respondent No. 39 society in Matadahalli Layout which was approved by the Government vide its letter dated 10-7-1981. Such resolutions are claimed to have been passed by the authority and approved by the Government in the subsequent years also. Such resolutions are claimed to have been passed by the authority and approved by the Government in the subsequent years also. It is admitted that in the year 1987-88 about 84,000 applicants had applied for allotment of sites in response to the Newspaper Notification inviting applications for allotment of 3,200 sites. Copy of the resolution and the proposed amendment have been annexed with the objections as Annexures 'r2' and 'r3'. Notwithstanding the pendency of consideration of the amendment of rules, the Government is stated to have issued directions to the respondent authority from time to time for according permission to certain allottees for sale of their sites during the lease period. Despite repeated submissions made for amendment of rules, the State Government is alleged to have reiterated its direction in respect of the individual allottees and ordered the Authority to implement the directions and report compliance as is evident from letter dated 20th December, 1995, Annexure 'r5'. The respondent authority has expressed its helplessness in the matter of granting permission for sale of sites during the pendency of the lease period, obviously in violation of the prevelant rules. ( 7 ) THE sites are stated to have been released to the Legislators through the Legislature Association as per the approval of the Government in the form of bulk allotments. In all about 604 sites are stated to have been resolved to be allotted and released in various layouts as approved by various resolutions and Government Orders in favour of the members of respondent No. 39 Society and Sarvodaya Welfare Association. Allotments are claimed to have been made as per orders of the Government issued from time to time. Most of the beneficiaries are stated to be recipients of sites released under the bulk allotment in favour of respondent No. 39 Society made in pursuance to the Government directions from time to time. The respondent authority claims to have not resorted to discrimination or violation of the provisions of the Act, Rules and orders issued thereunder. The petition is stated to be misconceived and liable to be rejected. ( 8 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 in its statement of objections have claimed to be the Premier Investigating Agency of the Government of India specialised for investigation of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petition is stated to be misconceived and liable to be rejected. ( 8 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 in its statement of objections have claimed to be the Premier Investigating Agency of the Government of India specialised for investigation of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Besides investigating offences like major frauds and other economic offences relating to Central Government Servants and also Employees of Central Public Undertakings. As on 31st October, 1996, there were 1, 761 cases pending investigation with the Central Bureau of Investigation which were being handled with a meagre strength of investigating officers. Allegations made by the petitioner are stated to be not complicated requiring investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The alleged irregularities can be got investigated, if so required from several State Agencies like Corps of Detectives, and Central Crime Branch. ( 9 ) DEFENDING his allotment, the respondent No. 5 in his objections has prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. Petitioner's status for filing this petition is also disputed. He has claimed to be in public life for long time. He became the member of respondent -39 Society. It is contended that the Bangalore Development Authority had set apart some of the sites to be allotted as per seniority for the Legislators through respondent-39. Site No. 26 measuring 50 x 80 situated at R. M. V. Extension, II Stage, Bangalore was allotted to him as per regulation HUD 347 MNX dated 14-12-1988 on payment of Rs. 89,000/- vide order Annexure 'r1'. Lease-cum-Agreement of sale was executed thereafter and possession delivered on 21st June, 1993. The aforesaid respondent submits that he met with an accident and got fractured of his leg. He had to incur expenditure of more than Rs. 4. 00 Lakhs for his treatment. Facing financial problems, he applied and got permission from the respondent authority to sell the said site. The permission granted by the authority is claimed to be bona fide and not for profit or for purposes other than genuine and reasonable. ( 10 ) RESPONDENT No. 7 has been a Member of Parliament and Karnataka Legislative Council. On the selection made by respondent-39 society, he was allotted site bearing No. Legislator-248 in Hosur-Sarjapur Layout, sector VI, facing 80 Feet Road adjoining a corner site to be converted for commercial purpose. ( 10 ) RESPONDENT No. 7 has been a Member of Parliament and Karnataka Legislative Council. On the selection made by respondent-39 society, he was allotted site bearing No. Legislator-248 in Hosur-Sarjapur Layout, sector VI, facing 80 Feet Road adjoining a corner site to be converted for commercial purpose. Lease-cum-Sale agreement was executed on 19th October, 1989 and possession delivered to the aforesaid respondent on the same day. He contends that the title and N. . O. C. of the site vests with the Bangalore Development Authority and the allottee is only a tenant or a lessee for a period of 10 years. He admits that Rule 13 and the conditions of the Lease-cum-Sale Deed prohibit the lessee/tenant from transferring or alienating the site for a period of 10 years. The tenant/lessee is under an obligation to symbolically pay a rent of Rs. 10/- every year to the Bangalore Development Authority. The allotment of the site is stated to have not been made under any discretionary quota or out-of-turn quota. So far as Rule 14 is concerned it is submitted that the Government/bangalore Development Authority has not been given any discretion in the relaxation of conditions. He admits that relaxation of conditions during the period of lease would be without the authority of law. Relaxation if any appears to have been resorted to in exercise of the powers vesting in the authority under S. 65 of the Act. In support of his contentions the respondent No. 7 has filed a number of documents including the receipt of membership Registration Fee, Certificate of Registration as member for respondent No. 39, intimation regarding allotment of site, order of allotment of site. ( 11 ) RESPONDENT No. 8 has submitted that he was an Ex. M. L. A. and a member of respondent No. 39 Society. Bangalore Development Authority allotted him a site on the recommendations made by respondent No. 39. He claims to have taken possession of Site No. L-1137 on 3rd March, 1990 vide Annexure 'r1'. He claims to have made an application requesting the Government to relax the condition of Sale-cum-Lease and permit him to sell the site in question on the ground that he was in need of urgent financial assistance. He alleges to be facing decree and attachment by the syndicate P. L. D. and Malaprabha Bank. He claims to have made an application requesting the Government to relax the condition of Sale-cum-Lease and permit him to sell the site in question on the ground that he was in need of urgent financial assistance. He alleges to be facing decree and attachment by the syndicate P. L. D. and Malaprabha Bank. The State Government is stated to have formed opinion in the circumstances of the case in granting permission to sell. Such a permission being in discretion of the Government cannot be called in question and does not authorise this Court to interfere with the exercise of that discretion. ( 12 ) NO statement of objections are shown to have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 9. ( 13 ) IN his reply the respondent No. 11 has submitted that being a Legislator he became the member of R-39 Society. The Bangalore Development Authority is stated to have set apart some of the sites to be allotted to the Legislators as per their seniority through respondent No. 39 society. He claims to have become the member of respondent No. 39 society in March, 1981. The aforesaid society by its letter dated 13th December, 1990 informed him of the allotment of a site at Boopasandra measuring 50' x 80' vide Annexure 'r2'. Subsequently, the Bangalore Development Authority by letter dated 12th January, 1991 allotted the site on payment of a sum of Rs. 89,900/ -. Lease-cum-Agreement of Sale was executed on 12th February, 1991 and possession delivered on 19th February, 1991. He has admitted that the Government has provided Legislatures Home for providing accommodation to the Legislators, but it is submitted that the accommodation provided was not sufficient to live with the family in privacy. This respondent has claimed to be a siteless person having no accommodation in the city of Bangalore. The allotment made is stated to be not under any discretionary quota. The petition is stated to have been filed on the basis of reckless and baseless allegations. ( 14 ) RESPONDENT No. 12 has admitted the allotment of site bearing No. 335, Sarakki IV Phase, Bangalore, for valuable consideration. Absolute Sale Deed was executed by the Bangalore Development Authority on 12th June, 1996. The petition is stated to have been filed on the basis of reckless and baseless allegations. ( 14 ) RESPONDENT No. 12 has admitted the allotment of site bearing No. 335, Sarakki IV Phase, Bangalore, for valuable consideration. Absolute Sale Deed was executed by the Bangalore Development Authority on 12th June, 1996. In view of alleged forced circumstances, reason for meeting his medical expenses and other urgent needs, the said respondent obtained permission from the Special Deputy Commissioner as per endorsement dated 28th August, 1996 and thereafter sold the said property for valuable consideration to Dr. Madan Mohan Raj Patil vide Sale Deed dated 30th September, 1996. It is submitted that in the absence of the said purchaser, the present writ petition cannot proceed nor any orders affecting the interests of the transferee can be passed. According to this respondent the writ petition is laible to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary and proper party. ( 15 ) NO statement of objections shown to have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 14. ( 16 ) IN his reply respondent No. 15 has submitted that he not even being M. L. A. , or M. P. or M. L. C. has wrongly been added party respondent in the case. It is submitted that neither the Bangalore Development Authority nor any Society has allotted to him any site in Bangalore Metropolitan Area at any time. He submits that true facts of the case are that his father Sri B. Baskhar Shetty was a member of the respondent No. 39 society and was allotted a site in the year 1988 on the basis of the seniority amongst the members of the society. Allotment letter was issued on 4th November, 1988 and Possession Certificate on 19th July, 1989. The father of the aforesaid respondent expired on 6th March, 1993 and the said site was transferred to him by the authority on 27th April, 1994 vide transfer agreement dated 17th June, 1994, Annexure 'r5'. After the demise of his father the said respondent faced financial difficulties and to over come the alleged financial stringency he decided to sell the site after obtaining permission from the respondent vide Government Order dated 10th July, 1995. He alienated this aforesaid site in favour of Dr. Jyothi Prakash Shetty on 16th April, 1996. After the demise of his father the said respondent faced financial difficulties and to over come the alleged financial stringency he decided to sell the site after obtaining permission from the respondent vide Government Order dated 10th July, 1995. He alienated this aforesaid site in favour of Dr. Jyothi Prakash Shetty on 16th April, 1996. The transfer in his favour and the grant of permission for alienation of his site is claimed to be legal, valid and according to law. It is contended that the writ petition in so far of the said respondent is concerned being misconceived is liable to be dismissed. ( 17 ) NO statement of objections are shown to have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. ( 18 ) RESPONDENT No. 26 was a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly during 1983-85 and in that capacity he became a member of respondent No. 39 society. Site No. L-130 measuring 50' x 80' was allotted to him on payment of Rs. 89,900/ -. Lease-cum-Sale Deed was executed on 17th March, 1993 and possession certificate was issued on 11th October, 1995. He claims to be the resident of Tumkur where he owns and possess agricultural land. It is however submitted that as the annual rainfall in that area is scanty he suffered huge loss in agriculture and had incurred debts. In the circumstances, he sought approval of the State Government to permit him to sell the site allotted to him in order to discharge the debts incurred by him. He alleges to be under the debt liability of Rs. 5. 00 Lakhs. The State Government accorded the approval for sale of site on 28th August, 1996. He could not sell the site in view of the pendency of this writ petition, and the interim orders passed by this Court. He has denied the allegation of misusing his office for obtaining undue advantage over the general public in obtaining the site from the Bangalore Development Authority. The allegation of undue favouratism shown towards him by the State Government in permitting the sale of the site has vehemently been denied. He has also denied the allegation of making undue profit from the sale of site at the expense of general public. ( 19 ) RESPONDENT No. 27 was an elected Member of Parliament from Koppal constituency. The allegation of undue favouratism shown towards him by the State Government in permitting the sale of the site has vehemently been denied. He has also denied the allegation of making undue profit from the sale of site at the expense of general public. ( 19 ) RESPONDENT No. 27 was an elected Member of Parliament from Koppal constituency. He also claims to be a freedom fighter having no site or house at Bangalore, he applied for grant of a site measuring 50' x 80' at HSR Layout. The Bangalore Development Authority resolved to allot him a site No. L-1118 of Hosur-Sarjapur L. H. Colony vide Order dated 22nd June, 1990. On payment of the requisite amount, lease-cum-sale deed document was executed on 19th March, 1992 and possession delivered on 20th March, 1992. He claims to be having a very big family and decided to construct a Hotel for the welfare of his family for which he availed a loan from the K. S. F. C. to the tune of Rs. 7,41,198/- on 25th October, 1995. As he could not clear the loan, he decided to sell the site for liquidating the loan. He has been given permission to alienate the site by letter dated 24th August, 1996. He submits that if the writ petition is not dismissed, he would be forced to stop hotel construction project. The allotment is claimed to be made strictly according to law. ( 20 ) ). According to respondent No. 28, the Government and respondent authority had formulated a scheme for providing residential sites to Members of the Assembly and the peoples representatives in the Parliament. He has claimed to be entitled to the allotment of a site in Bangalore. According to him the scope and object of the Act is to provide housing facilities in the city of Bangalore to an extent of the people as far as possible. He claims to have made sincere efforts to put up construction on the site allotted to him by obtaining necessary plan and fulfilling all requirements under the Act. It is further submitted that as he was in steep financial distress he approached respondent Nos. 1 and 3 who are stated to have conceded to his request. But he submits that he has no intentions of disposing the site allotted to him. It is further submitted that as he was in steep financial distress he approached respondent Nos. 1 and 3 who are stated to have conceded to his request. But he submits that he has no intentions of disposing the site allotted to him. Depriving him of the site allotted, or to right to alienate it, has been termed by him are being sent to gallows. The writ petition is stated to be suffering from delay and laches has been prayed to be rejected. ( 21 ) RESPONDENT No. 30 has been a member of Legislative Assembly from 1967 to 1977 and became a member of respondent No. 39 society. It is submitted that the Bangalore Development authority has set apart some of the sites to be allotted as per seniority of the legislators to respondent No. 39. Site No. L-78 measuring 50' x 80' at Hosur Sector VI was allotted to him vide resolution dated 29th March, 1988. A sum of Rs. 89,900/- being the principal amount of consideration and a sum of Rs. 9,560/- on account of interest for belated payment was paid by the aforesaid respondent. After execution of the Lease-cum-agreement of sale the possession is stated to have been delivered on 6th March, 1990. He has admitted the existence of Legislature Home for accommodation of the Legislators, but contended that in that Hostel no provision has been made for accommodation of the family members. He declares to be a siteless person, not owning any site or house either at Bangalore or at any other place. The allegation regarding violation of the provisions of the Act and the allotment rules have vehemently been denied with the submission that the petition filed is neither bona fide nor in public interest. ( 22 ) NO statement of objections shown to have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 30, 33 and 37. ( 23 ) RESPONDENT No. 38 has claimed to be the member of the Respondent No. 39 Society, a body incorporated under the Societies Act having its main objective to provide house sites to its members through Bangalore Development Authority or by forming layouts of its own. He claims to have been allotted a site for consideration vide resolution No. 953 dated 29th March, 1988 of the Respondent Authority which was approved by the Government vide order dated 14-12-1988. He claims to have been allotted a site for consideration vide resolution No. 953 dated 29th March, 1988 of the Respondent Authority which was approved by the Government vide order dated 14-12-1988. It is contended that as all the members of the Society have not been impleaded as party respondents, the petition was liable to be dismissed. The sites are claimed to have been allotted strictly according to law and the rules applicable. It is submitted that after his defeat in the assembly elections in 1994, Respondent No. 38 was forced to face financial difficulties being left with no alternative but to approach the State Government for grant of permission to sell the site before the lease period by relaxing the allotment rules. The Urban Development Department of the State Government permitted him to alienate the site on the condition of payment of penalty of 12% on the cost of site. ( 24 ) THE Respondent No. 39 Society in its objections has submitted that as per its bye-laws the present and former M. L. As. , M. L. Cs. and M. Ps. from the State are eligible to become its members. The Society is stated to have been formed in 1980. In the year 1988-89 it was allotted 373 sites by way of bulk allotment in various areas of Bangalore. The Society in turn forwarded the list of eligible members as per the seniority list of their registration in the Society to the Bangalore Development Authority. All such eligible members were intimated to apply directly to the Bangalore Development Authority as per allotment rules by making the necessary application and filing the necessary affidavits. The eligible members thereafter approached the Bangalore Development Authority directly and after complying all the formalities as required by the Bangalore Development Authority, were issued allotment letters of which the Society is not aware, not being in position of any allotment orders. The members who are alleged to have sold the sites had not sought any permission from the Society as there was no requirement for the same. The Writ Petition against Respondent No. 39 is stated to be misconceived and as such liable to be dismissed. ( 25 ) WE have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person and the learned counsel appearing for Respondents at length. We have also perused various documents produced in the case by the parties. The Writ Petition against Respondent No. 39 is stated to be misconceived and as such liable to be dismissed. ( 25 ) WE have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person and the learned counsel appearing for Respondents at length. We have also perused various documents produced in the case by the parties. The learned counsel for the Respondent Authority has also furnished us requisite information from time to time besides separately submitting a note regarding the procedure for allotment of sites to the Legislators. ( 26 ) BEFORE adverting to the rival contentions of the parties regarding merits of the case it is necessary to first deal with the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition. The twin grounds of attack regarding the maintainability are (i) unexplained delay and laches and (ii) the locus standi of the petitioner to seek the relief from the court against the Respondents. ( 27 ) AS the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, no limitation is provided for invoking the jurisdiction under the said Article. However, equitable principle of delay has been applied by the Constitutional Courts, as a rule of discretion. The delay in approaching the court is a rule of practice and not a rule of law. Delay has been held to be not an absolute bar where it is satisfactorily explained or where lack of jurisdiction or the illegality complained of is patent or where the litigant is shown to have been prevented from approaching the court on account of the promises made, assurances given and hopes assured. The delay would also not come in the way of the court in granting the relief where the violation alleged is found to be of a fundamental right. The delay would also not be a ground to reject the petition when the facts brought to the notice of the court are shocking which if not remedied are apprehended to shaken the faith of the citizen in the rule of law. In a petition which is proved to have been bona fidely filed in public interest, the court may appropriately mould the relief instead of rejecting the petition. In a petition which is proved to have been bona fidely filed in public interest, the court may appropriately mould the relief instead of rejecting the petition. No hard and fast rule can be laid down regarding the delay and each case is required to be decided according to its circumstances, keeping in mind the paramount object of administering the justice and for the protection and preservation of the rule of law. Technicalties of law cannot be permitted to obstruct the course of justice. Various High Courts in the country have held that when a writ is sought on the ground of violation of fundamental right, the breach should be regarded to be a continuing wrong where the question of limitation would not arise. The question of limitation may not be relevant where the action complained of is shown to have been resorted to, accomplished stealthily and under dubious circumstances. To disentitle a person in getting relief on the ground of delay it has to be first ascertained whether he was not diligent in approaching the court at the earliest. Delay however would be a relevant consideration in declining to grant the relief where the action complained of is shown to be personally affecting the person approaching the court. In the light of the position of law regarding delay, as noted hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the present petition cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of delay and laches. To arrive at this conclusion we have been persuaded and impressed by the importance of the matter involved and far-reaching effects of the consequential orders which may be passed in this case in the interest of justice, equity and good conscious, for supremacy of law and strengthening the democratic institutions intended to achieve the goal set forth in the constitution of the country. ( 28 ) THE rule of locus standi and insistence upon the person aggrieved only to approach the court of law has not been strictly followed by the Constitutional Courts in the country in matters where the action is shown to have been initiated in public interest. In S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 , it was held that such a rule was 'a rule of ancient vintage and it arose during an era when private law dominated the legal scene and public law had not yet been born'. In S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 , it was held that such a rule was 'a rule of ancient vintage and it arose during an era when private law dominated the legal scene and public law had not yet been born'. After referring to the case in Sidebotham's case (1880) 14 Ch D 458 and Reed Bowen and Company's case (1887) 19 QBD 174 of the English Courts, it was held "but narrow and rigid though this rule may be, there are few exceptions to it which have been evolved by the Courts over the years". In K. R. Shenoy v. Udipi Municipality, AIR 1974 SC 2177 , it was held that against an illegal action of the local authority, a rate payer could question the action of the Municipality in granting a cinema license to a person. ( 29 ) AFTER referring to the Judgments in :a) K. R. Shenoy v. Udhipi Municipality, AIR 1974 SC 2177 ;b) Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344 ;c) S. P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 ;d) Bandhus Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 ;e) Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109 andf) Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892 . This Court in K. V. Amarnath v. State of Karnataka, ILR (1998) Karnataka 730 summarize the law on the point and indicated the circumstances upon the existence or non-existence of which the writ jurisdiction could be exercised in public interest without insisting upon the traditional rule of locus standi. The test laid down in this regard are :"i) That the impugned action is violative of any of the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India and relief is sought for its enforcement. ii) That the action complained of is palpably illegal or mala fide and affects the group of persons who are not in a position to protect their own interest on account of poverty, incapacity or ignorance. ii) That the action complained of is palpably illegal or mala fide and affects the group of persons who are not in a position to protect their own interest on account of poverty, incapacity or ignorance. iii) That the person or a group of persons were approaching the Court in public interest for redressal of public injury arising from the breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the constitutional law;iv) That such person or group of persons is not a busy body of meddlesome inter-loper and have not approached with mala fide intention of vindicating their personal vengenance or grievance;v) That the process of public interest litigation was not being abused by politicians or other busy bodies for political or unrelated objectives. Every default on the part of the State or Public Authority being not justiciable in public in such litigation;vi) That the litigation initiated in public interest was such that if no remedied or prevented would weaken the faith of the common man in the institution of the judiciary and the democratic set up of the country;vii) That the State action was being tried to be covered under the carpet and intended to be thrown out on technicalities;viii) Public interest litigation may be initiated either upon a petition filed or on the basis of a letter or other information received put upon satisfaction that the information laid before the Court was of such a nature which required examination;ix) That the person approaching the Court has come with clean hands, clean heart and clean objectives;x) That before taking any action in public interest the Court must be satisfied that its forum was not being misused by any unscrupulous litigant, politicians, busy body or persons or groups with mala fide objective of either for vindication of their personal grievance or by resorting to black-mailing or considerations extraneous to public interest. "testing on the touchstone of the principles enumerated hereinabove, it cannot be held that the present petition filed in public interest is not maintainable. In the pleas raised by the Petitioner, the action of the Respondents has been challenged on the ground of being violative of the guarantees enshrined in Part-III of the Constitution of India. Citizens similarly situated are alleged to have been designated only on the ground of favours done to the legislators. In the pleas raised by the Petitioner, the action of the Respondents has been challenged on the ground of being violative of the guarantees enshrined in Part-III of the Constitution of India. Citizens similarly situated are alleged to have been designated only on the ground of favours done to the legislators. The action of Respondents 1 to 3 is alleged to be palpably illegal and activated by extraneous considerations, which affects the common citizen by conferment the State largesse upon a group of persons, termed to be influential and privileged. It is not alleged by the Respondents that the Petitioner is a busy body or meddlesome inter-loper. He is also not alleged to have approached the Court mala fidely or with the intention of vindicating his personal vengeance or grievance. There is nothing on record to suggest that the process of public interest litigation was being abused by the Petitioner for his personal or political or unrelated objectives. The Petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court, circumstances by which he has tried to show that the Respondents have attempted their illegalities to be covered under the carpet. There is no allegation against the Petitioner of having not approached the Court with clean hands, clean heart and clean objective. We have also satisfied ourselves that the agency of the Court is not being misused by the Petitioner with mala fide objective or for vindication of his personal grievance or he was resorting to any blackmailing or considerations extraneous to public interest. This preliminary objection being also without any substance is negatived. ( 30 ) FROM the pleadings of the parties it appears that under the Allotment Rules, the B. D. A. undertakes the allotment of sites to the general public in terms of Rule 3, which stipulates that whenever the B. D. A. forms any extension or layout in pursuance of any scheme, it may, subject to the general or special order of the Government, offer any or all the sites in such extension or layout for allotment to persons eligible for allotment of sites under the Allotment Rules. It is obligatory for the B. D. A. to notify the availability of sites and invite applications from eligible persons. It is obligatory for the B. D. A. to notify the availability of sites and invite applications from eligible persons. According to the practice prevalent, the third Respondent Authority has been allotting sites among different categories, such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, State Government Employees, Physically Handicapped Persons, General Public etc. presumably in accordance with certain prescribed ratios as allegedly stipulated in Rule 11 of the Allotment Rules. The B. D. A. also allots stray sites in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government. Sites have been allotted to the Members of Respondent No. 39 Society with the approval of the Government. Prior to coming into force of the Allotment Rules, a total of 604 sites were allotted to R-39, the particulars of which are as under : @@si. No. Authority Resolution No. and Dategovernment Order and No. and Dateno. of sites approved for allotmentname of the Layout 1. 272/2-4-81hud 225 MNX 81 Dt. 100futher Extn. Of Mattadahalli10/14-7-1981 2. 139/17-7-86hud 339 MNX 86 Dt. 56koramangala 4th 'b' Block24-10-1986 3. 251/23-10-86hud 339 MNX 86 Dt. 99koramangala, Gangenahalli and30-1-1987sarakki 4. 587/3-7-87hud 339 MNX 86 Dt. 100rajmahal Vilas (Lottegolla-30-9-1987halli) 5. 379/16-1-87hud 347 MNX 88 Dt. 249rajmahal Vilas II stage14-12-1988 (Bhoopasandra) and Hosur total 604@@ sarjapur Roadafter the allotments were approved by the Government, the procedure to be followed was to request Respondent No. 39-Society to send the list of Members to whom the sites were to be allotted. Upon receipt of those names, the B. D. A. used to request the individual Members to file additional information in the prescribed form along with self-affidavit to the effect that the allottee or any Member of his/her family did not own a site or house in Bangalore. On receipt of the requisite documents and after verification of the eligibility of the concerned, further action used to be taken by issuance of allotment intimation and execution of the lease-cum-sale agreement as per the Allotment Rules. ( 31 ) THE Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of a Development Authority for the development of the City of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and for matters connected therewith. Section 3 deals with the constitution and incorporation of the Authority, which has been defined to be a body corporate with power, subject to the provisions of the Act, to acquire, hold and dispose of property for the purposes of the Act. Section 3 deals with the constitution and incorporation of the Authority, which has been defined to be a body corporate with power, subject to the provisions of the Act, to acquire, hold and dispose of property for the purposes of the Act. Section 14 provides that the object of the Authority shall be to promote and secure development of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, for which it shall have the power to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of movable and immovable properties, whether within or outside the area under its jurisdiction, to carry out building, engineering and other operations and generally to do all things necessary or expedient for the purpose of such development and for purposes incidental thereto. The scheme of the Act envisages the acquisition of the land, its conversion into residential layouts and allotment of sites in such layouts to individual applicants with the object of satisfying the bare requirement of a large section of the citizens who have settled down in the city to eke out decent livelihood or to permanently reside in the City. Under Section 15 of the Act, the Authority is empowered to undertake works and incur expenditure for development, etc. Development Schemes contemplated under Section 16 is required to provide for : (A) the acquisition of any land which, in the opinion of the Authority, will be necessary for or affected by the execution of the scheme; (B) laying and relaying out all or any land including the construction and reconstruction of buildings and formation and alteration of streets; (C) drainage, water supply and electricity; (D) the reservation of not less than fifteen per cent of the total area of the layout for public parks and playgrounds and an additional area of not less than ten per cent of the total area of the layout for civic amenities. Scheme is required to be submitted to the Government for sanction under Section 18 and upon sanction the Government is obliged to publish the scheme in the official gazette in the manner as provided under Section 19 of the Act. Section 32 authorises the Authority to form new extensions or layouts and to make new private streets. Section 38 authorises the Authority the power to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property, which belongs to it. Section 32 authorises the Authority to form new extensions or layouts and to make new private streets. Section 38 authorises the Authority the power to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property, which belongs to it. Under Section 38a, the Authority has the power to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any area reserved for civil amenity for the purpose for which such area is reserved. Section 38b empowers the Authority to make bulk allotments and Section 65 empowers the Government to give such directions to the Authority as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of the Act and the Authority is under a statutory obligation to comply with such directions. Section 69 authorises the Government to make Rules for the purposes specified therein and other purposes for the Act. The Authority, can with the previous approval of the Government make Regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder to carry out the purposes of the Act as is provided under Section 70 and to make bye laws in terms of Section 71. ( 32 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred by Section 69 of the Act, the Government of Karnataka have made the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984. The relevant Rules to be noticed for the purposes of disposal of this Petition are Rules 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 which are reproduced hereunder :"8. Registration :- (1) Every applicant for a site shall register his name on payment of registration fee as specified in the table below. If an applicant withdraws the registration the Authority shall refund to such applicant the entire registration fee paid by him after deducting ten per cent of the registration fee towards service charges. The registration shall be done in form No. 1. TABLE @@74. htm@@ (2) Registration made shall be valid for subsequent allotment unless the applicant has withdrawn the registration. 9. Application :- (1) A person so registered as above has to apply in the prescribed Form 11 for allotment of a site along with the initial deposit of 121/2 per cent of the notified cost of the site. The initial deposit shall be 5 per cent in the case of persons applying for sites under the categories of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward Tribes. The initial deposit shall be 5 per cent in the case of persons applying for sites under the categories of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward Tribes. (2) The applications shall be presented in person or sent by registered post so as to reach the office of the Authority before the date and time fixed for the receipt of such Applications. Applications received after the date and time fixed or which are defective and incorrect shall be rejected. (3) In case where applications have already been made for allotment of sites in response to a notification already issued by the Authority and where the applications are still pending without a decision as to their disposal and fresh applications have been called for, for allotment of further sites the applicant who has already applied for allotment of a site and paid the initial deposit in response to the first notification need not pay once again the initial deposit. However, he should make applications in response to the second notification in Form II (A) which is appended to these rules. 10. Eligibility 1. No person :- (1) Who is a minor, (2) Who is not a domicile of Karnataka for not less than ten years immediately prior to the date of registration; and (3) who or any member of whose family owns a site or a house or has been allotted a site or a house by the Bangalore Development Authority or any other Authority within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area shall be eligible to apply for allotment of site :provided that the requirement of ten years domicile may be relaxed : (i) in the case of persons who are domiciled in the State of Karnataka but being 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; (iii) with the prior permission of Government, in the case of persons who have achieved outstanding distinction in the field of art, sports or in any other field. 11. 11. Principles of selection of applicants for allotment of sites and reservation of sites ;- (1) The sites shall be allotted among the different categories as follows :- (a)Backward Tribes2 per cent (b)Scheduled Tribes3 per cent (c)Scheduled Castes13 per cent (d)Members of the Armed forces of the Union, Ex-Servicemen andmembers of the families of deceasedservicemen5 per cent (e)State Government employees10 per cent (f)Employees of the Central Gov-ernment and Public Sector under-takings and statutory bodies ownedor controlled by the State Govern-ment or the Central Government8 per cent (g)Physically handicapped2 per cent (h)General Public52 per cent (i)To be allotted at the discretion of the Authority with preference beinggiven to persons who have outstand -ing achievements in Arts, Science orsports or any other field5 per centexplanation : (i) If at the time of making an allotment sufficient number of applications from persons belonging to category (a) are not received, then the remaining sites reserved for that category shall be transferred to category (b) and if sufficient number of applications from person belonging to categories (a) and (b) are not received, then the remaining sites reserved for these categories shall be transferred to category (c) and if sufficient number of applications from persons belonging to categories (a), (b) and (c) are not received, then the remaining sites reserved for these categories shall be transferred to category (h ). (ii) If at the time of making an allotment, sufficient number of applications from persons belonging to any of the categories (b), (e), (f) and (g) are not received, then the remaining sites reserved for the category concerned shall be transferred to category (h ). (2) In respect of the categories (a) to (h) the Authority shall consider the case of each application on its merits and shall have regard to following principles in making selection :- (i) The marital status of the applicant, that is, whether he is married or single and has dependent children; (ii) The income of the applicant and his capacity to purchase a site and build a house thereon for his residence :provided that this condition shall not be considered in the case of applicants belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Tribes. (iii) The number of times the applicant had applied for allotment for a site and the fact that he did not secure a site earlier though he was eligible and had applied for a site; (iv) The fact that the land belonging to the applicant has been acquired by the Authority for the formation of the layout for which he has applied; (3) For the purpose of sub-rule (2) the Autho-rity shall constitute a committee called the 'allotment Committee' consisting of three official members and three non-official members. The Chairman of the authority shall be the Chairman of the Allotment Committee. (4) Subject to the approval of the Authority the decision of the Allotment Committee shall be final. (5) Subject to the provisions of Rules 8, 9 and 10 the Authority shall allot the sites under category (i) at its discretion with preference being given to person who have outstanding achievements in the arts, science, sports or in any other field. 13. Conditions of allotment and sale of site :the allotment of a site under these rules shall be subject to the following conditions :- (1) The allottee shall within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of notice of allotment, pay to the Authority the balance sital value deducting the initial deposit, if the said value is not paid within a period of ninety days the Authority shall, on application of the allottee, extend the time for payment for a further period not exceeding two hundred and ten days and the allottee shall pay in addition, interest at the rate of eighteen per cent on the said amount for the first sixty days of the extended period and at the rate of twenty one per cent for the next hundred and fifty days of the extended period if the amount is not paid within such extended period also, the registration fee shall be liable to be forfeited and the allotment cancelled without prior intimation. Provided that where an allottee is a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or to a Backward Tribe or to a family of Defence personnel killed or disabled during the hostilities and whose annual income from all sources does not exceed rupees five thousand, the balance of the value of the site required to be paid under this sub-rule shall be paid by him without interest, within a period of three years in three equal annual instalments from the date of receipt of the notice of allotment. Provided further that Government may, on application of the allottee and for reasons to be recorded in writing extend the period specified under this sub-rule till such time as it deems fit and the allottee shall pay in addition to the balance sital value interest at the rate of twenty one per cent on such balance sital value in respect of the period so extended in addition to the interest payable for the period of two hundred and ten days extended by the Authority. (2) After payment under sub-rule (1) is made, the Authority shall call upon the allottee to execute a lease-cum-sale agreement in Form II and thereafter the execution of such agreement by the allottee and the Authority, the same shall be registered by the allottee. If the agreement is not executed within 45 days after the Authority has called upon the allottee to execute such agreement, the registration fee paid by the allottee may be forfeited, the allotment of site cancelled and the amount paid by the allottee, after deducting such expenditure as might have been incurred by the Authority refunded to him. (3) Every allottee shall construct a building on the site in accordance with the plans and designs approved by the Authority, if in any case it is considered necessary to add any additional conditions, the Authority may make such additions in the Lease-cum-sale agreement. (4) Until the site is conveyed to the allottee, the amount paid by the allottee for the purchase of the site 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. (4) Until the site is conveyed to the allottee, the amount paid by the allottee for the purchase of the site 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. (5) The allottee shall comply with the conditions of the agreement executed by him and the buildings and other bye-laws of the Authority or the Corporation as the case may be for the time being in force. (6) 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 of the value of the site paid by the allottee, the Authority shall refund the balance to the allottee. (7) (i) On the expiry of the period of ten years from the date of the lease-cum-sale agreement and if the allotment has not been cancelled or the lease has not determined in accordance with these rules or the terms of the agreement, the Authority shall by notice call upon the allottee to get the sale deed of the site executed at his own cost within the time specified in the said notice. (ii) If the allottee fails to get the sale deed executed within the time specified, the Authority shall itself execute the same and recover the cost and other charges if any incidental thereto from the allottee as if the same amount are due to the Authority. (8) With effect from the date of taking possession of the site the allottee or his heirs and successors shall be liable to pay the taxes, fees and cesses payable in respect of the site and any building erected thereon. (9) If the particulars furnished by the applicant in the prescribed application form for allotment of sites are found to be incorrect or false, the sital value deposited shall be forfeited and the site shall be resumed by the Authority. 14. (9) If the particulars furnished by the applicant in the prescribed application form for allotment of sites are found to be incorrect or false, the sital value deposited shall be forfeited and the site shall be resumed by the Authority. 14. Restrictions, Conditions on sales of sites :- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Commissioner may at the request of the allottee of a site execute a deed of conveyance subject to the restrictions, conditions and limitations specified in sub-rule (2 ). (2) The conveyance of the site by the Commissioner in favour of an allottee (hereinafter referred to as the purchaser) shall be subject to the following restrictions, conditions and limitations namely :- (a) in the case of a site on which a building has not been constructed; (i) the purchaser shall construct a building on the site within such period as may be specified by the Authority as per plans, designs and conditions to be approved by the Authority or in conformity with the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and the bye-laws made thereunder. (ii) the purchaser shall not without approval of the Authority construct on the site any building other than a building for the construction of which the site was allotted, granted or sold. (iii) the purchaser shall not alienate site within a period of ten years from the date of the conveyance except by mortgage in favour of the Government of India or Government of Karnataka, the Life Insurance Corporation of India or the Karnataka Housing Board or any company or Co-operative Society approved by the Authority or any Corporation set up, owned or controlled by the State Government or the Central Government to secure money advanced by such Government, Corporation, Company, Board, Society or Corporation, as the case may be for the construction of the building on the site. (b) in the case of a site on which building has been constructed, the purchaser shall not alienate the site and the building constructed therein within a period of ten years from the date of agreement, except by mortgage in favour of the Government of India, the Government of Karnataka, the Life Insurance Corporation of India or the Karnataka Housing Board or any company or Co-operative Society approved by the Authority to secure moneys advanced by such Government, Corporation, Board or Society or Company for the construction of the building on the site. (c) in the event of the purchaser committing breach of any of the conditions in clause (a) or Clause (b) the Authority may at any time, after giving the purchaser reasonable notice, resume the site free from all encumbrances. The purchaser may remove all things which he has attached to the earth :provided that if he has left the site in the state in which he received it, all transactions entered into in contravention of the conditions specified in clauses (a) and (b) shall be null and void ab initio. Explanation : In this rule, a reference to the Authority shall be deemed to include the reference to the Commissioner when authorised by the Authority by the general resolution to exercise any power vested in the Authority. Explanation : In this rule, a reference to the Authority shall be deemed to include the reference to the Commissioner when authorised by the Authority by the general resolution to exercise any power vested in the Authority. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2) but without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 13 where the lease applies that for reasons beyond his control he is unable to reside in the City of Bangalore or by reasons of his insolvency or impecuniosity it is necessary for him to sell the site and the building, if any, he may have put up thereon the Bangalore Development Authority may, within the previous approval of the State Government either :- (a) require him to surrender the site, where there is no building in its favour; or (b) where there is a building put up, permit him to sell the vacant site and building :provided that : (i) in case covered by clause (a) the Authority shall pay to the lessee the allotted value of the site and an additional sum equal to the amount of interest at twelve per cent per annum thereon; and (ii) in case covered by clause (b) the lessee shall pay to the Authority a sum equal to the amount of interest at twelve per cent per annum on the allotted value of the site. " ( 33 ) BEFORE adverting to analyse the rival contentions, it is necessary to keep in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 that the Government in a welfare State is the regulator and dispenser of special services and provider of a large number of benefits, including jobs contracts, licences, quotas, etc. The valuables dispensed by the Government can be conferred in many ways, but all such conferments share the characteristic of taking the place of traditional form of wealth. Such conferment may be in the form of social security benefits, cash grants for political sufferers and the schemes for the State and the local welfare. The Government cannot be allowed to confer largesse and such benefits in favour of a particular class of people or belonging to a particular political party or professing a particular religious faith. In the matter of granting largess, the State cannot act arbitrarily. The Government cannot be allowed to confer largesse and such benefits in favour of a particular class of people or belonging to a particular political party or professing a particular religious faith. In the matter of granting largess, the State cannot act arbitrarily. The Government is not as free as an individual in selecting the recipients for its largess. A democratic Government cannot lay down arbitrary and capricious standards for the choice of persons with whom it alone all wants to deal. The activities of the Government having a public element should be shown to have been performed with fairness and equity. What is expected from a responsible democratic Government is equally applicable to the public and statutory Authorities. ( 34 ) TO justify the action of the Government in directing the allotment of sites to the Legislators, alleged to be a privileged class of the Society, the Respondents 1 to 3 have clothed their action under the terms of bulk allotment. Seeking protection of such allotments, reliance has been placed on Section 38b of the Act permitting the Authority to make bulk allotments. Section 38b was inserted by Act No. 17 of 1994 with effect from 20th of December, 1994. Section 8 of Act No. 17 of 1994 however validated the bulk allotment of land made by the Authority after 20th of December, 1975 and before the commencement of the said Act, if the allotment was made in favour of : (I) the State Government; or (II) the Central Government; or (III) any Corporation, body or organisation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government; or (IV) any Housing Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1959); or (V) any society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (Karnataka Act 17 of 1960); or (VI) a trust created wholly for charitable, educational or religious purposes. ( 35 ) THE concept of bulk allotment has been resorted to justify the action of the Government purported to have taken under Section 65 of the Act and Rule 4 (2) of the Allotment Rules. ( 35 ) THE concept of bulk allotment has been resorted to justify the action of the Government purported to have taken under Section 65 of the Act and Rule 4 (2) of the Allotment Rules. It appears that vide Government Order No. HUD/225/mnk/81 dated 10/14th of July, 1981, the Government accorded the approval to the Resolution on Subject No. 272 dated 2-4-1981, passed by the 3rd Respondent-Authority for earmarking 100 intermediate sites of different dimensions in favour of Legislators Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. Similarly, various other orders as noted hereinabove were passed, with the result that 604 sites were allotted to Respondent No. 39-Society. At whose instance the process for allotment of the sites in favour of Respondent No. 39-Society was initiated, is a mystery shrouded with doubts not cleared by Respondents 1 to 3. The Respondents have not specifically taken shelter under Section 65 of the Act authorising the Government to give directions to the Authority under the Act. The Authority has also not placed anything on record to show as to why they had passed Resolution for allotting sites to Respondent No. 39-Society. ( 36 ) A Division Bench of this Court in Telecom Employees' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Minority Communities and Backward Classes Improvement Centre, ILR (1990) Kant 3320, while considering the scope of Section 65 of the Act concluded that Section 65 of the Act did not authorise the Government to issue directions to make bulk allotment of lands. To come to such a conclusion, the Court held :"coming to question No. 2 viz. , whether the Government have power to issue directions to make bulk allotment under Section 65 of the Act, it has already been seen that under Section 65, the Government is enabled to give directions to the BDA 'as are necessary or expedient' for carrying out the purposes of the Act. In Writ Petitions 17234/88 and 13818/90 the respondents-Societies are armed with the orders of the Government. It is argued by Sri A. N. Jayaram appearing for the respondent-society in W. P. 13818/90, that Section 65 is not subject to any restrictions while Section 38 is so subject, and it is merely an administrative order. Such an order, as stated in Wade's Administrative Law, Fifth Edition Page 313, even if not made in good faith, must be held to be valid. Such an order, as stated in Wade's Administrative Law, Fifth Edition Page 313, even if not made in good faith, must be held to be valid. As we stated above, if the power of the Government is available to direct the BDA to carry out the purposes of the Act, certainly a direction in disregard of the statutory provision cannot be issued. Such a direction is not permissible in law. Therefore, the question of good faith does not arise. In Wade's Administrative Law, , Lord Radcliffe's observations in the leading case Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council, 1956 AC 736 are quoted as follows :- "an order, even if not made in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity upon its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeachable or orders. " but we are not here on good faith or bad faith. We are on the power whether available to the Government. Therefore, we reject this argument of Mr. Jayaram. Mr. Sampath Kumar, appearing for the respondent-Society in W. P. 17234/88 would draw our attention to Maxwell on interpretation of statutes and urge that a beneficial construction must be put so as to advance further the case of the respondents-Societies having regard to the fact that they have involved themselves deeply and practically burnt their bones by spending considerable amounts of money, and therefore, a construction most agreeable to justice and reason must be adopted. At page 93 of Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, XII Edition, it is stated as follows : "wilberforce J. has held that the words in Section 105 (1) (a) of the Housing Act, 1957, "purposes. . . . necessary or desirable for, or incidental to, the development of the land as a building estate" have "nothing exclusive about them. " He rejected the submission that the land could not be sold under the powers contained in the Section for ancillary purposes beneficial to other land, and held that, the language of the Section being quite general, it could not be said that the provision of schools was something which should be excluded from its scope. " He rejected the submission that the land could not be sold under the powers contained in the Section for ancillary purposes beneficial to other land, and held that, the language of the Section being quite general, it could not be said that the provision of schools was something which should be excluded from its scope. "page 199 :"presumption against intending what is inconvenient or unreasonable :-In determining either the general object of the legislature, or the meaning of its language in any particular passage, it is obvious that the intention which appears to be most in accord with convenience, reason, justice and legal principles should, in all cases of doubtful significance, be presumed to be the true one. "an intention to produce an unreasonable result is not to be imputed to a statute if there is some other construction available. " Where to apply words literally would "defeat the obvious intention of the legislation and produce a wholly unreasonable result", we must "do some violence to the words" and so achieve that obvious intention and produce a rational construction. The question of inconvenience or unreasonableness must be looked at in the light of the state of affairs at the date of the passing of the statute, not in the light of subsequent events. "page 208. "a sense of the possible injustice of an interpretation ought not to induce Judges to do violence to well-settled rules of construction, but it may properly lead to the selection of one rather than the other of two reasonable interpretations. Whenever the language of the legislature admits of two constructions and, if construed in one way, would lead to obvious injustice, the Courts act upon the view that such a result could not have been intended, unless the intention to bring it about has been manifested in plain words. "if the Court is to avoid a statutory result that flouts common sense and justice it must do so not by disregarding the statute or overriding it, but by interpreting it in accordance with the judicially presumed parliamentary concern for common sense and justice. " But the possibility of injustice which leads the Court to adopt a particular construction must be a real one: if the injustices suggested in argument are purely hypothetical, and may never or only rarely occur in practice; the Court will remain unmoved. " But the possibility of injustice which leads the Court to adopt a particular construction must be a real one: if the injustices suggested in argument are purely hypothetical, and may never or only rarely occur in practice; the Court will remain unmoved. " we are afraid that these principles will have no application because, if the power is wholly unavailable we cannot supply that in the guise of interpretation. He quotes Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1955 SC 661 ) and particularly refers to Head-note (c) and we extract the same :- "when an order or notice emanates from State Government or any of its responsible Officers directing a person to do something, then, although the order of notice may eventually transpire to be ultra vires and bad in law, it is obviously one which prima facie compels obedience as a matter of prudence and precaution. A person placed in such a situation has the right to be told definitely by the proper legal authority exactly where he stands and what he may or may not do. " we are unable to find any relevance of this because, these observations came to be made in rejecting the contention that where an assessment was ultra vires the Article 286, the party should not have felt aggrieved and rushed up to the Court under Article 226. Therefore, this has nothing to do with the present case. Busching Schmitz v. Menghani is yet another decision cited, and we find that case also does not help the respondents-Societies. Accordingly, we conclude that under Section 65 of the Act, the Government have no power to issue directions to make bulk allotment of lands. " ( 37 ) THE cloak of Section 38-B of the Act does not in any way dispel the impression that the allotments were made to R-39 for reasons not referable to the Act and apparently for political considerations. The law makers themselves started usurping public largesse by having resort to the technicalities of the procedure by totally ignoring the interests of the people who had elected them for making laws for the benefit of the Society. The real object of allotting the sites vide various Government Orders as noticed herein above clearly and unambiguously show that no safeguard was provided to ensure that the sites were allotted only to the needy and deserving legislators. The real object of allotting the sites vide various Government Orders as noticed herein above clearly and unambiguously show that no safeguard was provided to ensure that the sites were allotted only to the needy and deserving legislators. The bulk allotments made in favour of R-39 did not prescribe any guidelines. R-39 also accorded the sanction of allotment to its members on the basis of so-called seniority totally ignoring the mandate of the Act and the conditions of eligibility prescribed by the Allotment Rules. It is not disputed that any legislator, notwithstanding owning or possessing a house or site in Bangalore, could have become the member of R-39 and get himself registered as an aspirant for the allotment of the site. Without scrutinising the claim of the member concerned, R-39 started conferring largesse on its members only on the grounds of their assumed seniority in getting themselves registered as members. The respondents-Authority also does not appear to have satisfy itself regarding the compliance of the conditions of eligibility before actually allotting the sites to the members of R-39 Society. It is on record that as and when the Authority got intimation and particulars from R-39 with respect to intending allottees it only performed the ritual of compliance of the conditions of the Rules and without deciding the criterion of the eligibility made the allotments in favour of the legislators. Strictly speaking, it was therefore, not a case of bulk allotment but in fact the conferment of benefits at the instance of Government for reasons and grounds neither disclosed nor spelt out from the pleadings submitted on their behalf. Such an allotment can only be equated with the allotments made in the discretion exercised by the Government. The political executive of time, when the sites were made available to R-39, purportedly had such considerations in their mind which are not referable to the provisions of the Act. The mentioning of bulk allotment in some parts of the orders of the Government appears to be as not referable to any statutory provisions as admittedly Section 38-B authorising the authority to make bulk allotment did not exist at that time. The concept of bulk allotment referred to in the Government Orders was therefore not in existence and in fact resorted as a substitute of discretionary allotment. The concept of bulk allotment referred to in the Government Orders was therefore not in existence and in fact resorted as a substitute of discretionary allotment. Such allotments made without providing any guidelines or prescribing the criterion can be held to be arbitrary being in violation of the guarantees enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India. Such allotments have been quashed by the Constitutional Courts from time to time and the latest case in the series is the Full Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in C. W. P. No. 5851/1996 decided on 21st March, 1997 in case of Anil Sabharwal v. State of Haryana, reported in 1997 (2) ICC 516. All the allotments made to the legislators through R-39 at the instance and under the directions of the Government of Karnataka being illegal, unconstitutional and motivated by extraneous considerations are liable to be quashed. However keeping in view the fact that all the beneficiaries have not been impleaded as party-respondents in the present case and the delay in approaching the Court against the impugned action of the respondents we propose not to quash all such allotment of sites in these proceedings. Further, on being satisfied that the allotment of sites were unconstitutional and illegal we cannot remain silent spectators and are constitutionally bound to give proper directions in the matter in the interest of justice, for restoring of the rule and law and for strengthening the belief of the common man in the institution of judiciary. ( 38 ) ONE hundred sites are shown to have been allotted to the legislator-members of R-39 vide Government Order No. HUD:225:mmx: 81 dated 10/14-7-1981, admittedly, before coming into force of the allotment rules. The respondents have not specifically mentioned as to what provisions of law, rules or orders applicable in the case were given effect in this case. Hundreds of other sites are however admitted to have been allotted after the enforcement of the allotment rules. The respondent-Authority, under Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules, were obliged to offer the sites to persons eligible for allotment as and when it formed an extension or layout in pursuance of any scheme. Hundreds of other sites are however admitted to have been allotted after the enforcement of the allotment rules. The respondent-Authority, under Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules, were obliged to offer the sites to persons eligible for allotment as and when it formed an extension or layout in pursuance of any scheme. Due publicity was required to be given in respect of sites for allotment specifying their location, number, the last date of submission of applications and such other particulars as may be required by affixing notice to the notice boards of all the places specified in Rule 3 and by publication in not less than three daily newspapers published in the City of Bangalore in English and Kannada having wide circulation in the area. Nothing has been placed on record to show as to when, where and how, sites in dispute were ever offered for allottment. The respondent-Authority appears to have violated Rule 3 with immunity and despite challenge has not tried to justify its action. The allotments of the sites were to be on lease basis and such lease was to continue till the site was conveyed in the name of the allottee in accordance with the rules. During the period of lease the allottee was under an obligation to pay to the authority rent at the rates specified under Rule 7 of the Rules. Every applicant for site was required to register his name on payment of registration fee in the manner and to the extent as specified in the Table appended to Rule 8 of the Rules. A person so registered was thereafter required to fill in the prescribed form for the allotment of site along with an initial deposit of 121/2% per cent of the notified cost of the site. There is nothing on record even to suggest that the allottees of the disputed sites therein had got themselves registered or filed any application. Rule 10 prescribes the condition of eligibility for allotment of sites. A person who was a minor, not a domicile of Karnataka for not less than ten years immediately prior to the date of registration and who or any member of whose family owned a site or a house or had been allotted a site or a house by the Bangalore Development Authority or any other Authority within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area was not eligible to apply for allotment of site. Even though it is mentioned in the statement of objections, that the allottees of the site for legislators had been found eligible upon their furnishing of the affidavits, neither the Authority nor the State Government has stated that the eligibility was independently determined before making the allottment. Many of the allottees have not specifically submitted that they did not suffer from any illegibility in terms of Rule 10 of the allotment Rules. All the allotments are shown to have been made in a casual manner without recording proper satisfaction in terms of the Rules and under the circumstances which cannot be termed to be beyond the shadow of doubt. We, however feel that such violations, at this belated stage need not render the allotments invalid but would require reconsideration of the cases of the allottees of sites by the proper authorities in terms of directions as we propose to issue while disposing of these petitions. ( 39 ) MOST of the allottees of the sites are alleged to have alienated the sites in violation of Rules 13 and 14. Every allottee of the site was required to construct a building on the site in accordance with plans and designs approved by the authority within a period of three years from the date of the execution of the lease-cum-sale agreement. In the event of committing default in the completion of the construction without sufficient reasons, the allottees incurred disqualification rendering the lease to be cancelled and land to be resumed. The action for cancellation of the agreement and resumption of possession was required to be initiated under sub-rule (6) of Rule 13. It has been found that in most of the cases the beneficiaries allottees had violated the terms and conditions of allotment as prescribed by Rule 13 and the conditions of lease-cum-sale agreement executed between the parties. Despite there being violation of the Rules to the knowledge of the respondent-Authority, no action appears to have been initiated against any of such allottees. The respondent-Authority is therefore shown to have failed in the discharge of its statutory obligations. All such allottees who had not constructed the buildings within the time specified under the Rules, without getting any extension had incurred the liability of losing the site and the revocation of the agreement. The respondent-Authority is therefore shown to have failed in the discharge of its statutory obligations. All such allottees who had not constructed the buildings within the time specified under the Rules, without getting any extension had incurred the liability of losing the site and the revocation of the agreement. Lapses on the part of the Authority would not be deemed to have been conferred any additional benefit or right upon the defaulting allottees. Such default and breach of law is also required to be taken to the logical conclusion by having resort to the legal proceedings in accordance with law against the defaulters though at belated stages by keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and by holding enquiry as to why the concerned allottee had violated the Rule by not raising the construction of the building within the statutory and contractual periods. ( 40 ) DURING the course of the arguments it was found that most of the allottees had alienated the sites either without permission or with permission which was obtained by misrepresentation of facts and position of the law. Rule 14 of the Allotment Rules provided that an allottee of a site could request to the Commissioner to execute a deed of conveyance in his favour which was subject to the restrictions, conditions and limitations prescribed under sub-rule (2) thereof. No such purchaser had the right to alienate the site within a period of 10 years from the date of conveyance except by mortgage in favour of the Government of India or Government of Karnataka, the Life Insurance Corporation of India or the Karnataka Housing Board or any company or Co-operative Society approved by the Authority or any Corporation set up, owned or controlled by the State Government or the Central Government to secure money advanced by such Government, Corporation, Company, Board, Society or Corporation, as the case may be for the construction of the building on the site. In the case of a site on which building had been constructed, the purchasers could not alienate the site and the building constructed thereon within a period of 10 years from the date of agreement. In the case of a site on which building had been constructed, the purchasers could not alienate the site and the building constructed thereon within a period of 10 years from the date of agreement. In the event of purchasers committing breach of any of the conditions in clause (a) or clause (b), the Authority had the jurisdiction to resume the site free from all encumbrances at any time after giving the purchaser the reasonable notice. However, under sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 where the lessee applied that for reasons beyond his control he was unable to reside in the city of Bangalore or by reasons of his insolvency or impecuniosity it was necessary for him to sell the site and the building the authority, with the previous approval of the State Government, was either required him to surrender the site, where there was no building in BDA's favour; or where there was a building put up, permit him to sell the vacant site and building. In case the Authority required the purchasers to surrender the sites in its favour it had to pay to the lessee the allotted value of the site and an additional sum equal to the amount of interest at 12% per annum thereon. The sale could be permitted by directing the allottee to pay to the Authority a sum equal to the amount of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the allotted value of the site. It has to be noticed that the Authority had considered the matter regarding grant of permission to alienate the sites on various grounds and by its resolution dated 8-5-1995 had recommended to the Government that such permission be given only after suitable amendments were made to the Rules permitting to sell the sites during the lease period. It is not disputed that till date no amendment has been made to the Rules. It is also not disputed that without amending Rules a large number of allottees have been granted the permission to transfer the sites in favour of third parties. The Authority has, however, expressed its inability to adhere to the Rules as according to it, "the Government reiterated its directions in respect of the individual allottees and ordered this Authority to implement the said directions and report compliance vide letter dated 20th December, 1995 in No. HUD. 386. MNJ 95. The Authority has, however, expressed its inability to adhere to the Rules as according to it, "the Government reiterated its directions in respect of the individual allottees and ordered this Authority to implement the said directions and report compliance vide letter dated 20th December, 1995 in No. HUD. 386. MNJ 95. " It follows therefore that the respondent-Authority had not exercised the powers vesting in it under sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 for granting the permission to sell the vacant site or building to the allottees. The exercise of power and grant of permission at the instance of Government wholly being contrary to the law is not sustainable and all such permissions granted to the allottees at the instance of the Government are therefore nullity, void and inoperative which do not effect the right of the Authority. The State Government and the Authority are shown to have succumbed to the pressure of the allottees while granting permissions for sale which are shown to have been obtained by such allottees ostensibly for making profit by abusing the process of law and their position as legislators. ( 41 ) ASSUMING that the State Government had the powers to issue directions without amending the rules it has to be ascertained whether such a power was exercised within the restrains imposed by law or resorted to indiscriminately without following any procedure, guidelines or the criterion. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of the Allotment Rules provides that where a lessee applies stating that for reasons beyond his control he is unable to reside in the city of Bangalore or by reasons of his insolvency or impecuniosity it is necessary for him to sell the site and the building, if any, the Bangalore Development Authority, with the previous approval of the State Government require him to surrender the site, where there is no building in its favour; or where there is a building put up, permit him to sell the vacant site and the building. It follows, therefore, that even if the conditions prescribed by the aforesaid sub-rule are complied with, the permission to sell the site can be given only if there is a building put upon it and in accordance with the rules applicable. In other words a site where no building is put up, cannot be permitted to be sold under any circumstances. In other words a site where no building is put up, cannot be permitted to be sold under any circumstances. Upon fulfilment of the conditions prescribed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 14, the lessee, in case where no building is put upon the site, is liable to surrender the site in favour of the Authority who is required to pay him the allotted value of the site an additional sum equal to the amount of the interest at 12% per annum thereon. Where, however, the building is put up and the permission is sought to sell the vacant site and the building, the lessee is required to prove that he was unable to reside in the city of Bangalore or by reasons of his insolvency or impecuniosity he was not in a position to retain the site or construct the building. We are of the opinion that where a person finds himself unable to reside in the city of Bangalore, he is under an obligation to surrender the site as required under clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 read with proviso (i) of the Allotment Rules. On such a ground the lessee is not entitled to be granted the permission to sell the site or building to any other person. Inability to reside in the city of Bangalore warrants the lessee to surrender the possession and get the payment in accordance with the rules as noticed hereinabove. ( 42 ) SO far as the sale of the site where a building is put up, the lessee can be granted permission to sell only if he proves to be insolvent or for reasons of impecuniosity. Neither insolvency nor impecuniosity has been defined under the Act or the Rules. The insolvency or impecuniosity have, therefore, to be assigned meanings as provided under the provisions of the corresponding law or as understood in the ordinary parlance. The dictionary meaning of the word insolvent are, "not having enough money to pay debts, creditors, etc. ; belonging or relating to insolvent people; or the state of being insolvent and the word impecunious means "a person who is penniless; poor; having little or no money. " Both the words are, therefore, equivalent to the legal term pauper or indigent person. Under English law insolvency is equated with bankruptcy. ; belonging or relating to insolvent people; or the state of being insolvent and the word impecunious means "a person who is penniless; poor; having little or no money. " Both the words are, therefore, equivalent to the legal term pauper or indigent person. Under English law insolvency is equated with bankruptcy. The bankruptcy proceedings in England are such proceedings by which possession of the property of a debtor is taken for the benefit of the creditors generally, by an officer appointed for the purpose, the property being realised and, subject to certain priorities distributed rateably amoungst those creditors. In Halsbury's Laws of England, the bankruptcy proceedings have been termed to be the proceeding wherein the debtor obtains protection from suits by the persons to whom he has incurred debts or liabilities, subject to certain exceptions-"when a man becomes bankrupt, he becomes subject to certain disqualifications in respect of his civil rights and public offices. Although no longer looked upon as a crime, as it once was, bankruptcy involves a change of status, and carries with it quasi-penal consequences, rendering the bankrupt liable to prosecution for specific bankruptcy offences. "bankruptcy or insolvency is creation of law and has to be adjudicated as such under the relevant statute. According to the Halsbury's Laws of England, (Para 8 Volume 3, 4th Edition) the scope and meanings of bankruptcy and insolvency have been termsed as"a man has a perfect right, so long as he is solvent, to continue a losing business; but the moment he becomes insolvent he does so at the risk of his creditors. As soon as he finds that he cannot pay loop in the pound, although he may nevertheless think that if he goes on he may be able to retrieve his position, he ought to call together his creditors, who will have to bear the loss in case his calculations are wrong, and leave them to determine whether the business shall be continued or not. Moreover, it is not enough to consult only the largest creditors. There is no insolvency within the meaning of this offence if a careful, prudent, and unhurried realisation of the assets would produce enough to pay loop in the pound on the amount of liabilities. "insolvency has, therefore, to be determined by the Court of law in accordance with and upon the settled principles governing such a declaration. There is no insolvency within the meaning of this offence if a careful, prudent, and unhurried realisation of the assets would produce enough to pay loop in the pound on the amount of liabilities. "insolvency has, therefore, to be determined by the Court of law in accordance with and upon the settled principles governing such a declaration. No other person or an Authority has the jurisdiction to hold a person 'bankrupt' or 'insolvent' only on his saying and for his convenience for the purpose of usurping fraudulently the public largesse. The burden of proof is upon the person who claims to be bankrupt or insolvent which is required to be discharged by him satisfactorily and to the knowledge of all concerned, presumably after a public notice. ( 43 ) ACCORDING to Order 33, Rule 1 of CPC, as applicable to the State of Karnataka, a person is a pauper :- (a) when he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit, or (b) where no fee is prescribed when he is not entitled to property worth Rs. 100/- other than property exempt from attachment under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 60 (1) of this Code and the subject-matter of the suit. Explanation 2 1. Any part of the subject-matter of the suit which the opposite party relinquishes and place at the immediate disposal of the plaintiff shall be taken into account in considering the question of the possession of sufficient means by the plaintiff. Explanation 3 1. Where the plaintiff sues in a representative capacity, the question of pauperism shall be determined with reference to the means possessed by him in such capacity. The words "possessed of sufficient means" would include the property of a person who seeks declaration of being a pauper such property which is not actually in his possession but his property in the hands of other also. ( 44 ) THE law relating to bankruptcy or insolvency in India was codified in various enactments which were later on substituted by the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act applicable to presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 which was applicable to whole of rest of India except the territories which, immediately before the 1st November, 1956, were comprised in Part B States and the Scheduled Districts. The aforesaid Act was made applicable to the State of Karnataka by virtue of Provincial Insolvency (Karnataka, Extension and Amendment) Act, 1962 being Karnataka Act No. 7 of 1963. By virtue of its extension, the Provincial Insolvency Act being No. 5 of 1920 became applicable to the whole State of Karnataka. Under Section 3 of Act No. 5 of 1920, the District Court has been designated to be Court having jurisdiction under the said Act. State Government has further powers to invest any Court subordinate to a District Court with the jurisdiction in any class of cases, and any Courts so invested has the power to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court under the said Act. Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act empowers the Court to decide all questions arising in insolvency including all questions whether of title or priority, or of any nature whatsoever, and whether involving matters of law or of fact which may arise in any case of insolvency coming within the cognizance of the Court. Section 6 specifies the acts of insolvency and Section 7 provides that if a debtor commits an act of insolvency, an insolvency petition may be presented either by a creditor or by a debtor, and the Court may on such petition make an order adjudging him an insolvent in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the said Act. Section 10 provides the condition on which debtor may present an insolvency petition. Section 13 deals with the contents of the petition to be filed before the Insolvency Courts and Section 28 refers to the effect of an order of adjudication as insolvent under the aforesaid Act. Section 28-A provides :-"28-A Insolvent's property to comprise certain capacity 1. Section 10 provides the condition on which debtor may present an insolvency petition. Section 13 deals with the contents of the petition to be filed before the Insolvency Courts and Section 28 refers to the effect of an order of adjudication as insolvent under the aforesaid Act. Section 28-A provides :-"28-A Insolvent's property to comprise certain capacity 1. The property of the insolvent shall comprise and shall always be deemed to have comprised also the capacity to exercise and to take proceedings for exercising all such powers in or over or in respect of property as might have been exercised by the insolvent for his own benefit at the commencement of his insolvency or before his discharge :provided that nothing in this section shall affect any sale, mortgage or other transfer of the property of the insolvent by a Court or receiver or the Collector acting under Section 60 made before the commencement of the Provincial Insolvency (Amendment) Act, 1948, which has been the subject of a final decision by a competent Court :provided further that the property of the insolvent shall not be deemed by reason of any thing contained in this section to comprise his capacity referred to in this section in respect of any such sale, mortgage or other transfer of property made in the State of Madras after the 28th day of July, 1942, and before the commencement of the Provincial Insolvency (Amendment) Act, 1948. Section 30 provides that notice of an order of adjudication stating the same, address and description of the insolvent, the date of adjudication, the period within which the debtor shall apply for his discharge and the Court by which the adjudication is made, is required to be published in the Official Gazette and in such a manner as may be prescribed. The adjudication of insolvency can be annulled under the circumstances and in the manner provided under Sections 35, 36 and 37. ( 45 ) THE acts of insolvency on which insolvency petition may be founded as noticed are specified under Section 6 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. According to aforesaid provisions, a debtor commits an act of insolvency :- (A) If in the State (for Provincial India) or elsewhere he makes a transfer of all or substantially all his property to a third person for the benefit of his creditors generally. (B) If in the States (for Prov. According to aforesaid provisions, a debtor commits an act of insolvency :- (A) If in the State (for Provincial India) or elsewhere he makes a transfer of all or substantially all his property to a third person for the benefit of his creditors generally. (B) If in the States (for Prov. India) or elsewhere he makes a transfer of his property or any part thereof with intent to defeat or delay his creditors. (C) If in the States (for Prov. India) or elsewhere he makes any transfer of his property or any part thereof which would, under the Insolvency Acts or any other law in force, be void as fraudulent preference, if he were adjudged insolvent. (D) If with intent to defect or delay his creditors, (i) he departs from or remains out of the States (for Prov. its territories to which this Act extends), (ii) he departs from his dwelling house or usual place of business or otherwise absents himself, (iii) he secludes himself so as to deprive his creditors of the means of communicating with him. (E) If any of his property is sold or (under the Pres. T. Ins. Act) attached for a period of not less than 21 days, in execution of the decree of any Court for the payment of money. (Under the Prov. Act, attachment of debtor's property, for however long a time, is no ground for founding an insolvency petition.) (F) If he petitions to be adjudged an insolvent. (G) If he has given notice to any of his creditors that he has suspended or is about to suspend payment of his debts. (H) If he is imprisoned in the execution of the decree of any Court for the payment of money. (I) If an insolvency notice issued against him remains unsatisfied (this last is only confined to Bombay State ). ( 46 ) IN order that a person be adjudged as an insolvent, it is essential that he should be proved to have committed any one or more of the acts, as noted herein above. The declaration is not a reward but a liability giving certain protections under the statute. The proof of commission of an act of insolvency are required to be strict and precise. The declaration is not a reward but a liability giving certain protections under the statute. The proof of commission of an act of insolvency are required to be strict and precise. The status of insolvency cannot be conferred merely upon vague allegations made with mala fide intentions of seeking protection from the rigours of law or getting benefit conferred upon insolvents specified under the statutes. The Courts while dealing with the insolvency petitions would naturally be under an obligation to find out the truth after ascertaining that the person seeking relief was not in any way taking advantage of his own wrongs. No one can be permitted to create circumstances by having resort to illegal deeds of action with the paramount intentions of defeating the claim of his creditors. The petition is required to be bona fidely presented, diligently prosecuted and the facts are stated to be sufficiently proved. ( 47 ) KEEPING in view the scheme of the Act, the purpose and object sought to be achieved by it and the language used in sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of the Allotment Rules, we have no doubt in our mind that the words "insolvency" or "impecuniosity" have been used in the same manner as are understood under the Provincial Insolvency Act. Such a status cannot be unilaterally claimed by any person or authority for seeking the benefits under the Allotment Rules but is required to be declared as such by a competent court of jurisdiction before granting any benefit on the basis of the proclaimed status on the ground of insolvency or impecuniosity. Leaving no doubt in the mind of anybody concerned, we make it sufficiently clear that no person shall be entitled to the benefit of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (3) read with provisos (i) and (ii) unless and until his financial status is determined by competent Court of jurisdiction. Before approaching the Authority or the State Government for permission to sell the site or the building, the lessee is required to obtain a decree or declaration in that behalf in the manner prescribed and as noticed by us herein above. Such a position of law is applicable not only to the respondents herein or the members of R-39 Society, but also to all the allottees under the Act. Such a position of law is applicable not only to the respondents herein or the members of R-39 Society, but also to all the allottees under the Act. ( 48 ) ADMITTEDLY none of the respondents herein or any other member of R-39 Society had obtained any declaration regarding his insolvency before approaching the Authority and the State Government for seeking permission to sell the site and/or the building in terms of Rule 14 of the Allotment Rules. All such permissions granted on the basis of the resolutions of the respondent-Authority, if any, being against the provisions of law as noticed herein above have to be totally ignored. No such permission or consequent transfers in favour of third parties can be held to be having affected the interests of the respondent-Authority. All such permissions and consequential transfers have to be deemed void and declared as such by having regard to the relevant provisions of law. So far as respondent-legislators herein are concerned, we do not feel any hesitation in declaring the permission obtained by them to be illegal, void and in-operative, but so far as the legislators who are not parties before us or the person who are transferees of allottees of site are concerned we feel that ends of justice would be met by issuance of proper directions and assuring the supremacy of law after resorting to legal recourse and after compliance of the principles of natural justice. ( 49 ) IN the light of what has been noticed herein above we are convinced that the allotments made to the Members of Respondent No. 39-Society were generally in violation of the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations made thereunder and the Orders issued from time to time in that behalf. We are satisfied that the allegations made in the petitions have substantially been proved, which require the interference of this Court for preservation of the Rule of law and its supremacy. The delay in approaching the Court, as noticed earlier, cannot be made a ground for rejecting the Petitions, but the said delay, though explained has put us on guard to issue such directions which are in consonance with the Act, the Rules, the Regulations, the Orders and the principles of natural justice. The delay in approaching the Court, as noticed earlier, cannot be made a ground for rejecting the Petitions, but the said delay, though explained has put us on guard to issue such directions which are in consonance with the Act, the Rules, the Regulations, the Orders and the principles of natural justice. The violations alleged in these petitions, if not remedied, are likely to affect about a lakh of people who are standing in the queue to make provision for shelter to their families in the City of Bangalore. The political executive cannot be permitted to resort to means and ways by adopting various techniques to confer the public largesse upon the privileged and influential at the cost and expense of the needy and deserving. The directions issued in these Petitions may not be restricted only to the Members of Respondent No. 39-Society, but also be applicable to the other allottees and Societies to the extent of the proved violations in the light of law laid down in this Judgment. It is needless to say that no action shall be initiated against any other erring allottee or Society without compliance with the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice. It is hoped that Respondents 1 to 3 shall realise the importance of the problem involved and take immediate action for compliance of the Court directions in their own interests and for the interests of the general public. ( 50 ) UNDER the circumstances of the case and keeping in view the position of law as noticed herein above, these petitions are allowed by the issuance of the following declarations and directions : (I) Respondent No. 3 is directed to constitute a high power Committee for the purposes of examining all the allotments made so far to the Members of Respondent No. 39-Society keeping in view the provisions of the Act, the Rules, the Regulations, the Orders issued in that behalf and the observations and findings recorded in this Judgment. Such Committee should comprise of experts in the fields and may be headed by a person of judicial background preferably a former Judge of this Court. Such a Committee shall be constituted within a period of one month from today with direction to submit its Report to the Authority within a period of four months from the date of its constitution. Such a Committee shall be constituted within a period of one month from today with direction to submit its Report to the Authority within a period of four months from the date of its constitution. It is needless to say that such a Committee shall examine all individual cases after notice to the concerned allottees. (II) Consequent upon the submission of the Report by the Committee, Respondent No. 3 shall initiate legal process for cancellation of the allotments wherever needed, obviously in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules, Regulations and after compliance of the principles of natural justice. (III) To facilitate an early Report, Respondent No. 3 shall notify the constitution of the Committee, its functions and the place of sitting by means of publication of a notice in three daily news- papers published from Bangalore having vide circulation in the State of Karnataka. Out of these three newspapers one shall be in Kannada language. Such publication shall be deemed sufficient notice to all concerned. The Committee shall, however, in its discretion be entitled to issue personal notices to the concerned. (IV) Respondent No. 27, who was allotted a site measuring 50' x 80' at HSR Layout is proved to have violated the terms of the lease-cum-sale agreement and the provisions of law, thus incurring a liability of cancellation of the site. The allotment of a site No. L-1118 of Hosur Sarjapur L. H. Colony made in favour of Respondent No. 27 is hereby cancelled with direction to Respondent No. 3 to resume the site and take its immediate possession. Respondent No. 27 is held entitled to the payment of such amount as is permissible to him under Rule 14 of the Allotment Rules only notwithstanding the amounts spent by him on the construction of a Hotel in violation of the provisions of law. (V) All permissions granted to the Respondents for alienation of land are held to be in violation of Rule 13 of the Allotment Rules and the conditions of lease-cum-sale agreement executed between the parties. Such permissions in so far as the concerned Respondents are concerned are declared to be nullity, void and inoperative not affecting the rights of the Respondent No. 3-Authority. Such permissions in so far as the concerned Respondents are concerned are declared to be nullity, void and inoperative not affecting the rights of the Respondent No. 3-Authority. Consequent upon the setting aside of the permissions granted for alienation, Respondent No. 3 is directed to take immediate consequential action under the provisions of the Act, Rules issued thereunder and the agreement executed between the parties. So far as the other allottees of the sites, who have been granted permission of alienation, but are not parties before us, a direction is issued to Respondents 1 and 3 to immediately initiate process for cancellation of such permissions after notice to the concerned and compliance of the principles or natural justice. Appropriate action shall be initiated within one month and effective orders be passed with respect to all concerned within a period of three months. (VI) The alienations made by the allottees in favour of the third parties would not come in the way of Respondents 1 to 3 to implement the directions of this Court. It is however, directed that in all such cases where the names of the transferees are notified, the Respondents 1 to 3 shall pass effective orders after notice to the concerned transferees also. (VII) That pending amendment of the Rules, no further permission shall be granted to any allottee for transfer of the site to any person under any circumstances. (VIII) Even after the Rules are amended as recommended by Respondent No. 3-Authority, the allottees of the sites from the B. D. A. are held not eligible to transfer the vacant site to any person for any reason. Allottees of such sites shall however upon proof of the conditions specified under Rule 14 (3) of the Allotment Rules be eligible to surrender the sites in favour of the Authority on receipt of the amount as provided under the aforesaid Rule. (IX) The allottees of the sites who have put up buildings shall be permitted to sell the sites only upon declaration of their status regarding insolvency or impecuniosity by a competent Court of jurisdiction and in the light of the findings returned by us in this judgment. (IX) The allottees of the sites who have put up buildings shall be permitted to sell the sites only upon declaration of their status regarding insolvency or impecuniosity by a competent Court of jurisdiction and in the light of the findings returned by us in this judgment. (X) Such of the allottees of the sites who are unable to reside in the city of Bangalore shall be required to surrender the site whether any construction is raised or not in favour of Respondent No. 3-Authority on receipt of the amounts calculated as per terms of Rule 14 (3) of the Allotment Rules. (XI) Respondent No. 3 is further directed to immediately appoint an Officer to ascertain within one week regarding the position of the sites so far as the construction of the building in terms of lease-cum-sale agreements is concerned. Such Officer shall submit his Report positively within a period of two weeks. (XII) Pending Report of the Committee appointed in terms of direction No. 1, no allottee of any site, which is in dispute and allotted at the instance of Respondent No. 39 shall be permitted to commence or carry on any construction on the site. (XIII) The directions issued and law laid down in this case shall mutatis mutandis apply to all the allottees of the sites made under the B. D. A. Act and Rules whether directly or through Housing Societies. (XIV) Petitioner in W. P. No. 32111/1996 is held entitled to the costs of litigation which is assessed at Rs. 20,000/- to be initially paid by Respondent No. 3 with authority to recover by adjustment from the claims of the allottees. Petitions allowed. --- *** --- .