M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 30. 1. 91/4. 2. 91 together with the result dated 11. 12. 90 Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to make allotment of the land in question in favour of the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and has been running a school called Agra Public School, which is recognized upto High School. It has about 2700 students of which about 50% are girls. The school was initially started as a Primary School but later it developed and hence requires mfore land. The petitioner applied for allotment of land to Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 1 wrote a latter dated 4. 1. 98 stating that the manager should apply when an advertisement is made. Thereafter an advertisement was published on 21. 8. 99 vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The respondent issued guidelines for allotment vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner made an application, which was recommended by the District Magistrate, Agra, the DIOS, Agra and Associate Inspector of anglo-Indian School, U. P. vide Annexurcs 5,6 and 7 to the writ petition. The Respondent No. 2 sent his (recommendation) regarding the petitioner Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 1 vide annexure-10 to the writ petition, It is alleged in Paragraph 10 of the petition that the petitioner was informed that his application was superior on merits as compared to that of Respondent No. ( 4 ) IN Paragraph 11 of the writ petition it is alleged that Respondent No. 4 approached the respondent No. 5 and on his direction the matter was re-considered by the Respondent No. 1 and at the behest of Respondent No. 5 the Committee recommended in favour of the Respondent no. 4 in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. 4. It is alleged in Paragraph 13 of the petition that the petitioner institution fulfills all the requisite qualifications for eligibility while the Respondent No. 4 was not even qualified since it does not have an existing school running and none is recognized. The institution for which the land has been applied by the Respondent No. 4 is only in imagination. It is alleged in Paragraph 13 of the petition that the petitioner institution fulfills all the requisite qualifications for eligibility while the Respondent No. 4 was not even qualified since it does not have an existing school running and none is recognized. The institution for which the land has been applied by the Respondent No. 4 is only in imagination. It is alleged that the impugned order is clearly without jurisdiction. ( 5 ) THE comparative merit of petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 is given in detail in Paragraph 15 of the petition. It is alleged that the decision in favour of the Respondent No. 4 was given at the behest of Respondent No. 5. ( 6 ) IT is alleged in Paragraph 19 of the writ petition that the petitioner has been warned by the cbse to have the institution shifted at a new site or else no recognition for High School will be accorded. It is alleged that the reason for preferring the Respondent No. 4 for allotment in Kamla nagar Housing Scheme is wholly irrelevant. ( 7 ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No. 1. ( 8 ) IN Paragraph 10 of the same it is alleged that the local Committee made recommendation to allot the land in favour of the Respondent No. 4. In Paragraph 14 of the same it is admitted that the Respondent No. 4 is not a recognized educational institution. However, it is alleged in paragraph 17 that the Respondent No. 4 has to in part education to backward communities. ( 9 ) WE have carefully perused the impugned order and we are of the opinion that it is wholly arbitrary and illegal. It is admitted in the order that the Respondent No. 4 is not even a recognized institution. Moreover, the District Magistrate by his letter vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition has recommended in favour of the petitioner, and so has the DIOS and Associate inspector of Anglo-Indian School, U. P. We facil to understand why there recommendations were ignored. ( 10 ) IN our opinion, it is evident that the impugned order was passed on extraneous considerations and hence it is arbitrary. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Respondent No. 1 is directed now to make fresh allotment of the land in accordance with law expeditiously. . .