Judgment : In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the order dated 9-8-2006 passed by the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as `the BDA, for short), cancelling the allotment of site bearing No. 751, Block II of Sir M. Visweshwaraiah Layout, Bangalore. .2. 1st petitioner is the daughter of the 2nd petitioner. They have jointly filed this writ petition. The 1st petitioner applied on 13-11-2001 to the respondent-BDA requesting for allotment of a site measuring 15 x 24 metres by paying a deposit of Rs. 71,500/-. As she was not allotted a site and as she had to go abroad, she executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of her father, the 2nd petitioner herein or 7-12-2001. Through her father and the General Power of Attorney ( holder, she again applied on 7-6-2002 seeking allotment of a site of the same dimension by paying the deposit amount of Rs. 71,500/-. The BDA issued one more notification calling for applications of allotment of sites in Block II, Sir M. Visweshwaraiah Layout, Bangalore. The 1st petitioner again applied through her GPA holder on 15-12-2002 by paying the necessary deposit. By order dated 7-4-2003, the BDA .allotted a site bearing No. 751, Block II, Sir M. Visweshwaraiah Layout, Bangalore and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5,03,400/-within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. This order is produced at Annexure-D. A No Objection Certificate was also issued by the BDA on 7-4-2003 for mortgaging the said property in favour of certain specified Banks/financial institutions for raising loan. 3. The 1st petitioner paid the amount of Rs. 5,03,400/- to the account of the respondent on 11-6-2003 which is evidenced by Annexure-F receipt. A show-cause notice dated 15-4-2006 vide Annexure-H was addressed to the 2nd petitioner by the Deputy Secretary of the respondent-BDA calling upon him to show cause why the site allotted to the 1st petitioner should not be cancelled since the application for allotment of site was signed by the 2nd petitioner and not by the 1st petitioner. 4. A reply dated 21-4-2006 vide Annexure-J was sent. 4. A reply dated 21-4-2006 vide Annexure-J was sent. However, by order dated 9-8-2006, the respondent cancelled the allotment on the ground that the application was filed by the 2nd petitioner on behalf of her daughter and it did not bear the signature of the 1st petitioner, which was against the provisions of Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred top as `the BDA Rules, for short). Aggrieved by the cancellation of allotment, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended as under. The application filed for allotment through the GPA holder is in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882. The respondent has treated the application as a valid one and on that basis has allotted the site to the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner being a domicile of Karnataka was eligible for allotment of the site. As she had to go abroad for a short period, she executed the GPA in favour of her father who filed the application for allotment. Having accepted the application, received the deposit and acted on the same by allotting the site, it was not open for the BDA to cancel the same after a lapse of nearly 4 years on the ground that application was not signed by the applicant herself. He has further contended that the BDA Rules do not contain any provision which prohibits the applicant to file the application through the GPA holder. .6. The BDA has filed statement of objections. Learned Counsel appearing for the BDA has strenuously contended that as per the BDA Rules, the 1st petitioner was required to submit the application duly signed by herself in the prescribed form declaring that neither herself nor her husband did not own any site or house in Bangalore Metropolitan Area. He submits that the declaration to be made in this regard in the application has to be signed by the applicant herself and as the 1st petitioner had not signed the declaration, the application filed was untenable in law. Hence, the allotment made without noticing the same was rightly cancelled. He submits that the declaration to be made in this regard in the application has to be signed by the applicant herself and as the 1st petitioner had not signed the declaration, the application filed was untenable in law. Hence, the allotment made without noticing the same was rightly cancelled. He has placed reliance on sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the BDA Rules, which states as under: ."(2) The applications shall be presented in person or sent by registered post so as to reach the office of the authority before the date and time fixed for the receipt of such applications. Applications received after the date and time fixed or which are defective and incorrect shall be rejected. 7. In support of his contention that the requirement in sub-rule (2) of personal presentation excludes signing of the application through the authorised agent, learned Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rao Bahadur Raravlu Subba Rao and Others v Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras AIR 1956 SC 604 : (1956)30 ITR 163 (SC). .8. The question that fell for consideration in the aforesaid judgment was in the background of renewal of registration of a partnership firm under the provisions of Section 26-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 read with Rules 2 and 6 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922 framed under Section 59 of the Indian Income-tax Act. Referring to a judgment of the Madras High Court, the Apex Court laid down the law. The facts adverted to by the Apex Court show that out of the two partners, one of the partners of the firm left on a long pilgrimage and the affairs of the partnership were managed by his agent under a general power of attorney. The general power of attorney applied for renewal of the registration certificate under Rules 2 and 6 of the Rules framed under Section 59 of the Income-tax Act and the application was signed by him for himself and again as the attorney of the partner. The rules provided that an application for registration of a firm under Section 26-A and for renewal of registration certificate "shall be signed personally by all the partners". The Income-tax Officer rejected the application for renewal on the ground that it was not personally signed by one of the partners and the signature through the agent was not valid. The rules provided that an application for registration of a firm under Section 26-A and for renewal of registration certificate "shall be signed personally by all the partners". The Income-tax Officer rejected the application for renewal on the ground that it was not personally signed by one of the partners and the signature through the agent was not valid. The matter was taken to the High Court of Madras which held that the word `personally in Rule 6 required that the partner should himself sign the application and that the principles of agency under the general law were excluded. The Apex Court dealing with the effect and purport of the word `personally used in the provision, has held as under: ."Thus, considering the question with reference to the character of the legislation, the scheme of the statute and the nature of the right conferred by Section 26-A, the conclusion is irresistible that rules of common law were not intended to be saved, and that the right to apply for registration under that section is to be determined exclusively by reference to the prescriptions laid down therein. If that is the true construction, in authorising the rule making authority to frame rules as to who can apply for registration under Section 26-A, and when and how, the statute has merely directed that authority to fill in details in the field of legislation occupied by it, and it is not denied that Rules 2 and 6 are within the mandate conferred by the section. In this view, Section 59(5) of the Act which enacts that "rules made under this section shall be published in the Official Gazette, and shall thereupon have effect as if enacted in this Act" directly applies, and the vires of the rules is beyond question. Vide the observations of Lord Herschell in Institute of Patent Agents) Lockwood, 1894 AC 347 : 63 LJP 75". 9. The Apex Court further dealing with the provisions contained in the Powers of Attorney Act, has held as under: "Thus, the fields occupied by the two enactments (Income-tax Act and Powers of Attorney Act) are wholly distinct. Section 26-A says that a partner cannot delegate the exercise of his rights under that section to an agent. 9. The Apex Court further dealing with the provisions contained in the Powers of Attorney Act, has held as under: "Thus, the fields occupied by the two enactments (Income-tax Act and Powers of Attorney Act) are wholly distinct. Section 26-A says that a partner cannot delegate the exercise of his rights under that section to an agent. Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act says that if there can be and, in fact there is, delegation, it can be exercised in the manner provided therein. There is accordingly no conflict between the two sections, and no question of repeal arises. To sum up, the Indian Income-tax Act is a self-contained code exhaustive of the matters dealt with therein, and its provisions show an intention to depart from the common rule, qui facit per alium facit per se. Its intention is that a firm should be given the benefit of Section 23(5)(a), only if it is registered under Section 26-A in accordance with the conditions laid down in that section and the rules framed thereunder. And as those rules require the application to be signed by the partner in person, the signature by an agent on his behalf is invalid". 10. The rule in question namely, Rule 9 of the BDA Rules does not require signing of the application personally by the applicant himself. What is required by sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 is the presentation of the applications in person or by registered post so as to reach the office of the authority before the date and time fixed for the receipt of such applications. This cannot be equated to a requirement of personally signing the application by the applicant himself. In the absence of such requirement, there is absolutely no justification for the learned Counsel for the respondent to draw parallel to the requirement contained in Rules 2 and 6 of the Income-tax Rules in the matter of registration of firms. 11. It has to be stated here that where a person authorises another to sign for him, the signature of the person so signing is the signature of the person authorising it. However, if the statute requires personal signature, then the signature through an agent may be said to have been excluded. But that is not so in the rules in question. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. However, if the statute requires personal signature, then the signature through an agent may be said to have been excluded. But that is not so in the rules in question. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. The order of cancellation passed by the respondent-BDA cancelling the allotment, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9-8-2006 produced at Annexure-L is set aside. A direction is issued to the BDA to take steps to act in accordance with the BDA Rules for registering the sale deed and for delivery of possession of the site allotted to the 1st petitioner.