CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a registered association under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It has made several applications to the B. D. A. seeking for allotment of C. A. sites for the purpose of Social and Cultural Activities of the institution. But, in spite of several efforts, the petitioner was not able to get a C. A. site allotted by the B. D. A. ( 2 ) ). The B. D. A. published a notification dated 19-1-1994 calling for applications for allotment of the C. A. sites. Pursuant to the said application, the petitioner has made an application for allotment of site No. 4 situated in Pillanna Garden. The 2nd respondent is also one of the applicants for allotment of the said site along with other four applicants. All the applications were placed before the Committee constituted under Rule 7, sub-rule (2) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civic Amenities Sites) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'rules' ). The Committee in its proceedings dated 26-3-1994 allotted the said site in favour of the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the B. D. A. intimated the allotment to the 2nd respondent and executed a lease deed in favour of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner, after, it has come to know of the allotment of the site in favour of the 2nd respondent has filed this writ petition challenging the correctness of the allotment. ( 3 ) THE B. D. A. has justified the allotment of site made in favour of the 2nd respondent in its statement of objection filed in this writ petition. Sri R. S. Hegde, learned counsel for the B. D. A. has also made available the records relating to the allotment of sites in favour of the 2nd respondent. ( 4 ) SRI. H. N. Nagamohan Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allotment of site in favour of the 2nd respondent is in breach of the Rules governing the allotment of the C. A. sites. In support of this, he relied upon Rule 7 of the Rules. Rule 7 of the Rules reads as follows :"7. ( 4 ) SRI. H. N. Nagamohan Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allotment of site in favour of the 2nd respondent is in breach of the Rules governing the allotment of the C. A. sites. In support of this, he relied upon Rule 7 of the Rules. Rule 7 of the Rules reads as follows :"7. Principles of selection of institutions for leasing out civic amenities sites :- (1) The Authority shall consider the case of each institution on its merits and shall have special regard to the following principles in making the selection; (a) The objectives and activities of the institution and the public cause served by it since its establishment. (b) The financial position of the institution; (c) The present location of the institution; (d) The benefit likely to accrue to the general public of the locality by allotment of the civic amenity site; (e) The bona fide and genuineness of the institution as made out in the annual reports, audit report etc. ; (f) The need of the civic amenity site by the institution for providing the civic amenity in question. (2) For the purpose of sub-rule (1), the Authority may constitute a separate committee to be called "civic Amenity Site Allotment Committee" consisting of three official members and three non-official members. The Chairman of the Authority shall be the Chairman of the Civic Amenity Site Allotment Committee. (3) Subject to the approval of the authority, the decision of the Civic Amenity Site Allotment Committee shall be final. "sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 provides that the authority shall consider the case of each institution on its merits. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 provides for constitution of the Committee for the purpose of allotment of Civic Amenities Sites. Pursuant to sub-rule (2) of Rule 7, the Committee has been constituted. The B. D. A. has placed all the applications filed in respect of site No. 4 of Pillanna Garden before the Committee. The Committee in its proceedings dated 26-3-1994 resolved to allot the said site in favour of the 2nd respondent. This allotment is contrary to sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rules. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 provides that every application filed by the institution is to be considered on its own merits. The Committee in its proceedings dated 26-3-1994 resolved to allot the said site in favour of the 2nd respondent. This allotment is contrary to sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rules. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 provides that every application filed by the institution is to be considered on its own merits. From the proceedings, I find that there is no consideration of any of the application filed seeking allotment of site No. 4 of Pillanna Garden by the Committee. Therefore, selection of respondent No. 2 without considering the other application on their own merit is in breach of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rules. ( 5 ) SRI R. S. Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the B. D. A. has not produced any other material to show that each of the applications filed have been considered on merits. If that is so, the allotment of site made by the B. D. A. on the basis of the selection made by the Committee is totally illegal and is liable to be quashed. In the result, I pass the following order : ( 6 ) WRIT petition is allowed. The order of allotment of site No. 4 of Pillanna Garden, Bangalore in favour of the 2nd respondent is declared illegal. The lease deed entered into between the B. D. A. and the 2nd respondent is also declared as invalid. However, it is open for the B. D. A. to reconsider the applications filed by all the applicants seeking for allotment of sites in accordance with the Rules. --- *** --- .