N. KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE Petitioner SGR Technical and Educational Society has preferred this Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the resolution dated 3-10-2002 of the 2nd respondentd and directing the respondent to cancel the lease agreement dated 18-3-2006 executed in favour of 3rd respondent and for a direction to consider the application of the petitioner for allotment of the civic amenity site. ( 2 ) 2nd respondent- Bangalore Development Authority issued a paper publication inviting applications for the allotment of Civic amenity Sites to an extent of 1819 sq. mtrs at RMV II Block, bangalore. Petitioner made an application for allotment of the above civic Amenity site and also deposited a sum of Rs. 2,17,007/- by way of demand draft towards initial deposit. Incidentally, it has to be mentioned that the said Civic Amenity site in the notification was reserved for setting up a nursing home. Petitioner's grievance is that in the meeting held on 3 -10-2002 by the Civic Amenity Site Allotment committee (for short hereinafter referred to as the "committee"), their application was not considered and however the civic amenity site was allotted to 3rd respondent to start an educational institution which is not the purpose for which the said site was notified. Therefore, they have preferred this Writ Petition challenging the aforesaid allotment, conseduently lease deed executed in favour of the 3rd respondent ( 3 ) BANGALORE Development Authority has filed detailed statement of objections justifying their action. It is the specific case of the Bangalore Development Authority that they received five application in respect of the civic amenity site in question which were placed before the committee with the connected files for taking appropriate action. In the committee meeting held on3-l 0-2002, it has authorised the Commissioner and the Chairman to take a final decision in the matter. The authority after careful scrutiny of the records available has allotted the said civic amenity site in favour of M/s. Babu Jagajivan ram National Trust, Bangalore vide order dated 16-11 -2002. On 18-3-2006, the lease agreement came to be executed and they were put in possession of the civic amenity site in question vide possession certificate dated 17-4-2006. As everything has been done in accordance with the rules, there is no error or illegality in their action. The copy of the resolution was also furnished to the petitioner on 16-9-2006. On 18-3-2006, the lease agreement came to be executed and they were put in possession of the civic amenity site in question vide possession certificate dated 17-4-2006. As everything has been done in accordance with the rules, there is no error or illegality in their action. The copy of the resolution was also furnished to the petitioner on 16-9-2006. Therefore, they have sought for dismissal of the Writ petition. ( 4 ) 3rd respondent is duly represented by a counsel. However, learned counsel submits that his client has not given him any instructions nor furnished any documents so as to enable him to file his statement of objections. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. ( 6 ) THE property in question is a civic amenity site. It was notified for allotment by way of public notice. In the public notice issued, it is earmarked for starting a nursing home. Petitioner is one of the appplicants for allotment along with the 3 respondent. The allotment of a civic amenity site is governed by the provisions of bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites)Rules, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ). ( 7 ) RULE 7 lays down the principles of selection of institution for leasing out the civic amenity sites. Sub-rule (l) of rule 7 sets out the criteria or the principles which should be taken note-of for making the selection. Sub-rule (2) of rule 7 provides, who makes the selection. It provides, for the purpose of Sub-rule (1), the authority may constitute a separate committee to be called as Civic Amenity Sites Allotment committee consisting of three official members and three unofficial members, the Chairman of the Authority shall be the Chairman of the civic Amenity Site Allotment Committee. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 makes it clear that subject to the approval of the authority, the decision of the committee shall bef final. Therefore it is clear under the rules, a committee is constituted with six members headed by the Chairman of the Bangalore Development Authority. ( 8 ) AFTER receipt of the applications in pursuance of an advertisement issued, the committee shall considered the case of each of the institution which has applied for allotment of a civic amenity site on its merits. ( 8 ) AFTER receipt of the applications in pursuance of an advertisement issued, the committee shall considered the case of each of the institution which has applied for allotment of a civic amenity site on its merits. In considering the claim of each of the applicants on merits, sub-rule (1) categorically provides what are the factors which should weigh in the minds of the members of the committee while making a selection. It is after comparative comparison on the merits of each applicant, they have to take a decision. After the decision is taken, if it is approved by the authority i. e. , the Bangalore Development authority, this decision of the committee would be final. ( 9 ) IN the instant case, the deliberation of the Committee is as under: ( 10 ) ( 11 ) A reading of the aforesaid resolution makes it clear that they have received four applications and one statement of objections insofar as site no. 3 which is earmarked for nursing home. A discussion took place in the said meeting. Thereafter they have taken a decision to authorise the Chairman and Commissioner of the Bangalore' development Authority to take a decision in the matter of allotment the proceedings of the Bangalore Developmentd Authority dated 17-1 -2003 shows that the proceedings of this committee is confirmed. It is thereafter the allotment letter has been issued to the 3rd respondent ( 12 ) FROM these undisputed facts, it is clear in the first place that there is no reference to the application of the applicant in the resolution. There is no comparative evaluation of merits of each applicant. Moreover the committee has not taken any decision to allot the site by itself. They have abdicate their power and surrendered the same to the Chairman and the Commissioner of the authority. Therefore, it is clear the allotment made in those circumstances is contrary to the statutory provisions of law, illegal and cannot be sustained. ( 13 ) IN that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to all the reliefs which he has sought for in this Writ Petition. Hence, I pass the following: order (1) The writ petition is allowed. (2) The impugned resolution dated 3-10-2002 passed by the Civic Amenity Site Allotment Committee is hereby quashed. ( 13 ) IN that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to all the reliefs which he has sought for in this Writ Petition. Hence, I pass the following: order (1) The writ petition is allowed. (2) The impugned resolution dated 3-10-2002 passed by the Civic Amenity Site Allotment Committee is hereby quashed. (3) Consequently, the lease deed executed by the Bangalore Development Authority in favour of the 3rd respondent -which is duly registered is also cancelled. (4) A direction is issued to the Sub-registrar to cancel the said document. (5) The entire matter is remitted back to the aforesaid committee for consideration of the claims of all the applicants on merits and in accordance -with the principles set out in rule 7 of the rules. (6) Parties to bear their own costs.