JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - In this Writ Petition the Petitioner challenges the action of the Cuttack Development Authority, Opposite Party, to hold an auction as per the decision of the Allotment Committee held on 25.11.2002 vide Annexure-4 regarding allotment of commercial plot No. 81/73 having an area of 1080 sq. fts. 2. The facts of the case are as follows; Petitioner has got a "F" category plot with an area of 510 sq. fts in Sector-8 of the C.D.A. Constructing a house over the said plot, he is residing there. Since the Petitioner is an Advocate by profession, he is in need of a bigger plot for his official accommodation and as the adjacent commercial plot measuring area of 1080 sq. fts. is available, he made an application to the Minister-cum-Chairman, Cuttack Development Authority to release the said plot from his discretionary quota and the Minister directed the Vice-Chairman, C.D.A to allot the said plot in favour of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the C.D.A Office prepared a plan changing the land to be used as shop to residential house and also layout map was prepared. While the matter stood thus, the Allotment Committee on 29.11.2002 defying the order of the Vice-Chairman decided to put the aforesaid plot to auction instead of issuing the allotment order in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has further alleged that the above action of the Allotment Committee is only to accommodate some staff of the C.D.A. who happens to be the relation of a seniormost Officer of the C.D.A. Hence, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 3. A counter affidavit to the Writ Petition has been filed by the Opposite Party stating therein that the Writ Petition is premature, as no final decision has been taken by the authority and they have only discussed an agenda to prepare a list of commercial plots available in all sectors similar to the nature of the plot in question and to place the same in the next meeting of the Allotment Committee for taking a decision on the mode of disposal and allotment of the said plots. A copy of the said decision taken on 25.11.2002 has been filed vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. A copy of the said decision taken on 25.11.2002 has been filed vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It has also been stated that the note sheets are merely their internal communications, suggestions and counter suggestions within the office of the C.D.A. and as no final decision has been taken over those matters, this Writ Petition should be dismissed. 4. The Petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit stating therein that the Chairman is the highest authority of the C.D.A. and since he had recommended to allot the plot in favour of the Petitioner, the other authority of the C.D.A. should have honoured the order passed by the Chairman and issued an allotment letter in favour of the Petitioner. It has further been stated that Plot No. 81 S/117 was allotted to one Gita Tripathy. As it was a commercial plot, the same was converted to residential plot and allotment was made thereafter. Hence, in the case of the Petitioner also, same process should have been adopted and the authority should have issued an allotment letter. 5. In reply to the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner, the Opposite Party has filed an affidavit reiterating its stand taken in the counter. It has been stated therein that the plot in question has been earmarked as shop, since the C.D.A has prepared a lay out plan of the sector and earmarked plots for different use keeping in view the convenience and the need of the inhabitants of the sector and that layout plan is usually approved by the authority before the process of allotment starts. So, any change, addition or alteration in such layout plan can only be effected after approval of the competent authority. In the present case, no approval was obtained from the authority to change the layout plan. The matter was forwarded to the Allotment Committee to place the same before the authority finally for decision. At this stage, on the decision of the Chairman alone, it is not possible to allot the plot in favour of the Petitioner. 6. It has been explained by the Opposite Party that so far as the allotment made in favour of one Gita Tripathy is concerned, the authority decided to put such plot in auction and fixed the offset price at Rs. 2,20,000/- and Smt. Gita Tripathy offered her bid for Rs. 6. It has been explained by the Opposite Party that so far as the allotment made in favour of one Gita Tripathy is concerned, the authority decided to put such plot in auction and fixed the offset price at Rs. 2,20,000/- and Smt. Gita Tripathy offered her bid for Rs. 2,30,001/- and that being the highest offer, the said plot was allotted in her favour. After depositing the bid price, possession was handed over to the allottee. It has further been stated that since the said plot was a commercial plot earmarked in the layout plan, Notice was published for auction of the same after following due process. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, since the authority has not yet decided anything and has not taken any step to allot the plot in question, we dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Cuttack Development Authority to consider the case of the Petitioner for allotment of the plot in question after following due process of law and communicate the decision taken thereon to the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. I.M. Quddusi, J. 8. I agree.