S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, claiming to be an association of interested shop keepers in the Lok Nayak Bhavan building has called into question the action of the respondent New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC) in allotting a portion of the premises in front of the building. ( 2 ) LOK Nayak Bhavan is a multi-storied public building which houses Government and Public Offices. There are some shops on the ground floor. A large parking lot is located in front of the building. At one corner of the vacant area meant for parking, two small rooms existed; one was used as fire control room and the other, as a storage area, by the Engineering Department of the NDMC. Apparently, both the premises were temporary constructions. ( 3 ) THE petitioners allege that sometime in the end of June, 2002 a construction was noticed proposing to a shop in the parking area in the temporary store of the NDMC. They aver that the proposal had not been sanctioned by the competent authority and that there was a shroud of secrecy over the entire move. It is alleged that the putting up of a construction and using the premises as a shop would be contrary to building bye laws and that the parking spaces for the building would be reduced. It is also alleged that utilization of the premises for shop purposes poses a hazard and undermines fire safety measures necessary for the building. ( 4 ) THE members of the petitioner association protested the move and lodged police complaints and also addressed letters on 24. 6. 2002, 10. 8. 2002, 4. 10. 2002, 9. 10. 2002 and 6. 5. 2003. The petitioners allege that no public interest would be sub-served in the conversion of the hitherto temporary construction into a shop premises and that such move was aimed at favouring a third party, viz the third respondent. The allotment of the premises to the third respondent has been attacked as a contrary to public interest. 2002 and 6. 5. 2003. The petitioners allege that no public interest would be sub-served in the conversion of the hitherto temporary construction into a shop premises and that such move was aimed at favouring a third party, viz the third respondent. The allotment of the premises to the third respondent has been attacked as a contrary to public interest. ( 5 ) THE petitioners also challenge the respondent's action, constructing a ramp by the side of the said shop premises and allege that even though it is ostensibly meant to cater to disabled persons, its location is not only awkward but defeats the very object, as a person with disability would have to travel the entire length of the parking lot to reach the ramp. The construction of the shop has been characterized as contrary to the building bye laws and put up without appropriate permission by the competent authority. ( 6 ) THE respondents had filed an affidavit on 19th August, 2004 and sought repeated adjournments to produce the records which were alleged to have been mis-placed. The order dated 10th January, 2005 had recorded that there was some unauthorized construction as per the affidavit of the NDMC itself. The Court directed that a status report be filed; the NDMC filed an additional affidavit on 15th April, 2005 explaining that the third respondent not had not contacted the Chief Architect and unilaterally carried out an extension which was subsequently inspected and that the Engineering Department had later clarified that the permission for repairs/renovation work was granted. Reliance has been placed on the letter dated 27. 5. 2002. ( 7 ) THE respondent NDMC defended allotment to the third respondent and averred that the use of the room was initially, as per the NDMC's thinking sought to be converted to office purposes as the adjacent room was used by for fire safety measures. Later, however, it was decided to advertise the premises as a shop as much of the ground floor of the building is being used as shops, the objective being higher revenue realization. It is averred that tenders were invited from eligible members of the public and opened on 18. 6. 2002. The highest rate/offer received was Rs. 144/- per square feet per month from the third respondent which was approved by the competent authority after recommendation of the Allotment sub-Committee. It is averred that tenders were invited from eligible members of the public and opened on 18. 6. 2002. The highest rate/offer received was Rs. 144/- per square feet per month from the third respondent which was approved by the competent authority after recommendation of the Allotment sub-Committee. It is also claimed that the proposal to convert the premises to shop was considered by the architectural wing after site inspection, and duly approved by the Chief Architect; finally acceptance was duly recorded by the Chairman, NDMC who is competent to do so, in that regard. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conversion of the premises as a shop/commercial space was unwarranted as it resulted in shrinkage of parking space. It was also submitted that the use of the premises was not authorized by the building bye laws and the respondents have not sought sanction from the competent authority, for the change. It was claimed that putting up of a permanent construction is also contrary to the building bye laws and the lay out plan. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner alleged that the whole move was designed to somehow favour the third respondent and that this was reinforced by the action of creating a ramp in order to ostensibly cater to persons with disability. She invited my attention to certain photographs of the shop and the ramp to say that location of the ramp was awkward and that persons with disability or with some physical handicap would be placed at a greater disadvantage while accessing and using the ramp. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent submitted that the decision to convert the existing structure into a shop was taken bona fide and with the object of revenue augmentation. It was submitted that all the necessary approvals of the concerned authorities were secured before the allotment was finalized and that there was no allegation, much less proof of mala fides. Learned counsel also submitted that the location of the ramp was not an issue that could be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution; even otherwise the petitioners' view was coloured by the fact that their shops faced the parking lot whereas the acceess to the public offices located on the other floors was closer to the ramp. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel produced the original records to say that the proposal to convert the existing room into a shop was seen by the concerned officials and finally approved by the Chief Architect; spot verification and inspection too had been undertaken. It was submitted that issues relating to permissibility of permanent construction in the light of lay out plan and building bye laws fell with the domain of the Chief Architect who was of the opinion that the proposal was within the necessary parameters. ( 12 ) THE facts narrated would show that the petitioners are allottees/occupiers of the shops at the ground floor of the Lok Nayak Bhavan. There is a large parking area in front of their cluster of shops. The space/premises in question is away from the building at a corner of the site. Two small rooms had been existing apparently from the beginning; they were used for housing fire personnel and also as stores/temporary offices for the engineering department. The original proposal as mooted in the NDMC was to convert the temporary storage area into an office; however eventually it was decided to use the space as a shop after putting it up for action. The site was inspected. The NDMC had initially also sought to convert the fire control room but later after considering all aspects dropped the idea. After due inspection of the proposal and the inspection report were placed before the Chief Architect who granted his approval. The allottee, namely, the third respondent had asked for permission to carry out certain repairs such as change of steel doors increasing the roof height and replacing the temporary roofing with RCC etc. These two were placed before the Engineering Department and finally approved by the Chief Architect on 27. 2. 2002. ( 13 ) THE present proceedings are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of such jurisdiction are too well settled; the Court would exercise its discretion and interfere with State action or an action of a public authority, if it is arbitrary, contrary to law, binding norms or premised upon irrelevant considerations and/or taken after ignoring relevant considerations. The Court will also strike down the action if it is actuated by the malice or mala fides. The Court will also strike down the action if it is actuated by the malice or mala fides. The jurisdiction does not admit of an appellate exercise where the materials are assessed on their merit; the Court is concerned more with adherence to standards of fairness and uniform and even handed applicability of legal provisions and binding guidelines. ( 14 ) IN these proceedings, the petitioner had not alleged mala fides, except rather vaguely that the changes were made to favour the third respondent. No attempt was made to pin point how the allotment amounted to a favour even though the offer was the highest, - to link conversion of the use into shop premises, with some ulterior motive. The charge of the move being contrary to public interest, in my opinion is untenable if not far fetched. The room was admittedly existing all this while; it was also used by NDMC. All that has happened now by the impugned action is that the use has been changed. It is not as if the NDMC changed it unilaterally without considering all relevant factors. The location, previous use and the potential use, the sanctioned lay out plan etc. were scrutinized before a final decision was taken. The Chief Architect also concurred with the proposal. Even the changes in raising the height of the room/premises and putting up a RCC roof were approved by the Chief Architect. In these circumstances, I see no infirmity in the impugned action of the NDMC allotting the said premises to third respondent for use as a shop. Equally, the location of the ramp is not a subject matter which can, at least in these proceedings, engage the attention of the Court. No hardship was pointed out as far as shopkeepers were concerned. There is no denial to the assertion of the NDMC that locationally the ramp is more convenient to access public offices located in the building. The subjective perception of the petitioners, in my opinion, does not qualify for a charge of State action being contrary to public interest. In view of the above findings, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is lacking in merits. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.