JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a direction to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to allot the shop room and handover its possession to the Petitioner and restraining them to allot the said shop room in favour of anybody else. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rising to this case are that the shop room No. B/17 (hereinafter called the 'shop room')at Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar become vacant as the earlier allottee asked for refund and handed over the possession thereof. The Petitioner filed an application on 10.4.1995 before opposite party party No. 1 to make the allotment of the same in her favour so that she could run a grocery shop. Petitioner claims that as per the direction of the opposite party No. 1, she deposited the full cost i.e. Rs. 31,375/- of the shop room by bank draft dated 22.4.1995 drawn in favour of the Housing Board, opposite party No. 2. As the Petitioner filed an application dated 24.4.1995 for early allotment, she was assured that all the formalities would be completed expeditiously and necessary allotment order would be made in her favour. Assurance given by the Chairman was not fulfilled, thus, Petitioner filed the writ petition for seeking the aforesaid relief. 3. Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner as well as opposite party No. 3 had applied for allotment of the shop room and both had deposited the entire amount of consideration. Therefore, the decision taken by the Allotment Committee of the Board in favour of opposite party No. 3 is arbitrary and unreasonable without fixing any criteria and assessing inter se merit of the two applicants. Therefore, the allotment in favour of opposite party No. 3 is liable to be quashed. 4. Mr. R. Rath, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has submitted that allotment of the shop room had been made in favour of the opposite party on 27.7.1995 i.e. long back by the allotment Committee of the Board in its discretionary quota, the question of disturbing her at such a belated stage does not arise. Opposite party No. 3 had deposited the entire amount on being asked by the Board. Opposite party No. 3 is enjoying her peaceful possession since allotment and she cannot be dispossessed for no fault of her. Opposite party No. 3 had deposited the entire amount on being asked by the Board. Opposite party No. 3 is enjoying her peaceful possession since allotment and she cannot be dispossessed for no fault of her. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Mr. S.K. Nayak, learned Counsel appearing for the Housing Board, opposite party No. 2 is not in a position to satisfy the Court as to under what circumstances the applications either of the Petitioner or opposite party No. 3 would be entertained as admittedly the applications had not been invited for allotment of the said shop room by publication in any newspaper. Mr. Nayak, has tried half heartedly to convince the Court that the allotment had been made validly in exercise of discretion by the Allotment Committee of the Housing Board. It is stated that at the initial stage 29 number of 'B' type shops were available and for the purpose of allotment, applications were invited by issuing an advertisement in 1983-84. Allotments were made and as Dr. J.B. Rath, the allottee of the said shop asked for refund, handed over the possession of the said shop room, it become vacant and in was in view of the discretionary quota of the Housing Board and as provided under the provisions of Orissa Housing Board Allotment Regulation, 197.0, a decision was taken to authorise the Chairman to allot the said shop in favour of any person. However, no allotment was made in spite of such an authorization. Smt. Bijayalaxmi Das, opposite party No. 3 applied for the shop room on 16.2.1995 and she also deposited the entire amount of consideration. Both the applications were considered and the allotment Committee of the Board vide resolution dated 22.06.1995 decided to allot the same in favour of opposite party No. 3 as she had deposited the entire cost.of the shop room before the Petitioner could deposit. Mr. Nayak submitted that interference at a belated stage would cause serious problems to the opposite party No. 3. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The allotment has to be made under the provisions of Orissa Housing Board Act, 1968 ( hereinafter called 'the Act'). Section 17 of the Act deals -with the powers and duties of the Board to undertake the housing schemes. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The allotment has to be made under the provisions of Orissa Housing Board Act, 1968 ( hereinafter called 'the Act'). Section 17 of the Act deals -with the powers and duties of the Board to undertake the housing schemes. Section' 18 provides the mode of acquiring the land etc. for execution of such housing schemes. However, the provisions of the Act are to be carried out giving strict adherence to the rules framed u/s 62 of the Act and the Regulation u/s 63 of the Act. The Orissa Housing Board Allotment Regulations, 1970 which have statutory force, are applicable in the instant case. Regulation 3(i) provides that after completion of construction of houses the same shall be offered for allotment.Clause (2) of Regulation 3 reads as under: Due publicity shall be given in respect of the houses for allotment specifying their location, number of houses, the amount payable as earnest money, the last date for submission of application and such other particulars as the Board may consider necessary; by affixing a notice on the notice board of the office of the Board and in any other office as the Board may decide from time to time and by publishing the same in not less than three daily newspapers having circulation in the area in which the houses are constructed by the Board, as may be decided from time to time. (Emphasis added). 8. Regulation 6 deals with making of applications for allotment of houses. Regulation 7 provides for deposit of earnest money and Regulation 8 deals with eligibility for allotment. Regulation 9 deals with process of making selection of allotment, which reads as under: 1. The Board shall consider the case of each applicant on its own merits and shall have due regard to the following principles while making allotments: (a) Applicants whose house have been acquired under the provisions of any law by any Trust Boards or other public authority; (b) Applicants who are married and have many dependents to be looked after; (c) Applicants whose income is within the limits prescribed and who pay the purchase money immediately; (d) Applicants whose needs are proved to the satisfaction of the Board to be too acute. 2. 2. In order to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of houses among the different classes of persons, houses may be reserved and allotted as far as possible as indicated thereunder: (a) Not more than fifty per cent of the available houses may be allotted to the employees of the State Government, Central Government, local authorities or Corporations, owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government; (b) The remaining houses may be allotted to the general public; (c) Houses that remain surplus under Clause (a) above may also be allotted to the general public. Regulation 15 provides for further conditions to be satisfied by allottees. 9. The scheme of the Regulation makes it clear that no allotment of house/shop can be made by the Board unless vacancy thereof has been advertised by giving due publicity which also requires inter alia publication in at least three newspapers having wide circulation in the area concerned. The Regulation also provide for reservation in favour of certain categories as indicated herein above. In the instant case, admittedly, no advertisement had ever been made in respect of the said shop room. Petitioner as well as opposite party No. 3 had not applied in response to any advertisement calling for application for allotment. They had deposited the money and submitted their applications having came to know from reliable sources that shop room was available for allotment. 10. It is settled law that when the action of the State or its instrumentalities is not-as per the rules or Regulations and supported by a statute, the Court must exercise its jurisdiction to declare such an act to be illegal and invalid. The ratio is that the rules or the Regulations are binding on the authorities. (Vide Sirsi Municipality by its President Sirsi Vs. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis, . 11. Similarly, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Life Insurance Corporation, Industrial Finance Corporation Employees Associations Vs. Bhagat Ram, Association of Clause II. Officers, Shyam Lal, Industrial Finance Corporation observed as under: The statutory authorities cannot deviate from the conditions of service. Any deviation will be enforced by legal sanction of declaration by Courts to invalidate actions in violation of rules and Regulations. The existence of rules and Regulations under statute is to ensure regular conduct with a distinctive attitude to that conduct as a standard. Any deviation will be enforced by legal sanction of declaration by Courts to invalidate actions in violation of rules and Regulations. The existence of rules and Regulations under statute is to ensure regular conduct with a distinctive attitude to that conduct as a standard. In cases of statutory bodies there is no personal element whatsoever "because of the impersonal character of statutory bodies the element of public employment or service and the support of statute require observance of rules and Regulations. Failure to observe requirements by statutory bodies is enforced by courts by declaring (action) in violation of rules and Regulations to be void. This Court has repeatedly observed that whenever a man's rights are affected by decision taken under statutory powers, the Court would presume the existence of a duty to observe the rules of natural-justice and compliance with rules and Regulations imposed by statute. (Emphasis added). 12. In Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (1987) 1 SCC 213 and Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, the Apex Court relied upon the judgment of the House of Lord in Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford (1880) 5 AC 214, and observed that enabling power conferred on the authority for the public benefit is coupled with a duty to act fairly in accordance with law. It is a duty which cannot be shirked or shelved nor it be evaded, performance of it can be compelled. 13. Any action being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution is arbitrary and if it is found to be de hors the statutory rules, the same cannot be enforced. (Vide Ram Chand and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; Purushottam Vs. Chairman, M.S.E.B. and Another, ; and Ajit Singh and Others Vs. The State of Punjab and Others, .). 14. In Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India and Others the Supreme Court reiterated the law laid down by it time and again that Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India provide for rule of equality which is the basic feature of the Constitution and, therefore, there can be no deviation from the principles enshrined therein while making the appointments. Rule of equality is an antithesis of any kind of arbitrariness or private gain, whim or caprice of any individual. Rule of equality is an antithesis of any kind of arbitrariness or private gain, whim or caprice of any individual. Even if the State has the discretionary power to issue executive instructions, such discretion is coupled with the duty to act in a manner which mill promote the object for which the power is conferred and also "satisfy the mandatory requirement of the Statute." (Vide A.P. Aggarwal Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another. In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others the Apex Court held that every State act, in order to survive, must not be susceptible to vice of arbitrariness which is a crux of Article 14 of the Constitution and basis to the rule of law. 15. In Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Another the Supreme Court observed that where a Government activity involves public element, the "citizen has a right to claim equal treatment", and when "the State acts to the prejudice of a person, it has to be supported by legality." Functioning of a "democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination". 16. Similarly, In Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others the Apex Court observed that the activities of the government had a public element and if it entered into any contract, it must do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure. Whenever the government dealt with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licenses or granting other forms of largesse, the government could not act arbitrarily at its sweet will but must act in conformity with standards or norms, without being arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. If the government departed from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases its action was liable to be struck down unless it could be shown that the departure was not arbitrary but was based on some valid principle which was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. The Court further held asunder: Every action of the executive Government must be in form of reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of rules of law and its bare minimum requirement. 17. The Court further held asunder: Every action of the executive Government must be in form of reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of rules of law and its bare minimum requirement. 17. Thus, a decision taken in an arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation and the plea of legitimate expectation relates to procedural fairness in decision making and forms a part of the rule of non-arbitrariness, as denial of administrative fairness is Constitutional anethama. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State. It should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. (Vide E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, ; Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, ; Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy, Represented by its Partner Shri Kasturi Lal, Jammu and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another, ; Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation, ; Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, ; Mahabir Auto Stores and others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and others, ; and Ghaziabad Development Authority and State of U.P. Vs. Delhi Auto and General Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Maha Maya General Finance Co. Ltd. and another, ). 18. In the State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. Nalla Raja Reddy and Others, ) the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court observed as under: official arbitrariness is more subversive of doctrine of equality than the statutory' discrimination. In spite of statutory discrimination, one knows where he stands but the wand of official arbitrariness can be waved in all directions indiscriminately. 19. Similarly, in S.G. Jaisinghani Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court observed as under: In the context it is important to emphasize that absence of arbitrary power is the first essence of the rule of law, upon which our whole Constitutional System is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon Executive Authorities, must be confined within the clearly defined limits. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon Executive Authorities, must be confined within the clearly defined limits. Rule of law, from this point of view, means that the decision should be made by the application of known principle and rules and in general such decision should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is, if a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is antithesis to the decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. 20. There is no manner of doubt that the public authorities and the Government are bound to act reasonably and fairly and each action of such authorities must pass the test of reasonableness and whenever action taken is found to' be lacking bonafide and made in colourable exercise of the power, the Court should not hesitate to strike down such unfair and unjust proceedings. (Vide Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Others, ; and Hansraj H. Jain Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, ). 21. Courts being custodians of law have a solemn duty to uphold the rule of law under all circumstances by directing the authorities concerned to act in accordance with law. If the rule of law is not enforced, it will surely become a casualty in the process, a costly consequence to be zealously averted by all, and at any rate, by the Court. (Vide Salkia Businessmen's Association and Others Vs. Howrah, Municipal Corporation and Others, ). 22. Wherever arbitrariness or unreasonableness is found, there is a denial of Rule of Law. The Rule of Law means absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, or prerogative or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the State or its instrumentality. (Vide State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Thakur Bharat Singh, AIR 1967. SC 1170). A decision taken by the authority under the Statute has to be made by the application of principles of rules, and, in general; such decision should be predicable and the citizen should know where he stands. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis to a decision taken in the rule of law. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis to a decision taken in the rule of law. The term Rule of Law connotes the undisputed supremacy of law -ana envisage a state of things in which every one respects the law and where law has to be followed by everyone collectively and individually by the citizens as well as by the State. The Rule of Law permeates the entire fabric of the Constitution and indeed forms one of its basic features. (Vide Bachan Singh, Sher Singh and Another and Ujagar Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others, ). 23. In fact the order of the State (or State instrumentality would stand vitiated if it lacks bona fides as it would only be a case of colourable exercise of power. In State of Punjab and Another Vs. Gurdial Singh and Others the Apex Court has dealt with the issue of legal malice which is just different from the concept of personal vice. The Court observed as under: When the custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested the court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion. In a broad, blurred sense, Benjamin Disraeli was not off the mark even in law when he stated; "I repeat that all power is a trust- that from the people, and for the people, all springs, and all must exist." Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end designed. Fraud in this context is not equal to moral turpitude and embraces all cases in which the action impugned is to affect some object which is beyond the purpose and intent of the power, whether this be malice-laden or even benign. If the purpose is corrupt the resultant act is bad. If considerations, foreign to the scope of the power of extraneous to the statute, enter the verdict or impels the action mala fides on fraud on power vitiates the official act. 24. In Nagendra Nath Bora and Another Vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Others, ; Sitaram Ramcharan etc. Vs. M.N. Nagarshana and Others, ; and Sarpanch, Lonand Grampanchayat Vs. 24. In Nagendra Nath Bora and Another Vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Others, ; Sitaram Ramcharan etc. Vs. M.N. Nagarshana and Others, ; and Sarpanch, Lonand Grampanchayat Vs. Ramgiri Gosavi and Another the Apex Court held that the writ Court should not interfere with the discretion of the Authority judicially exercised, but it may interfere if the exercise of the discretion is "capricious or perverse or ultra vires." 25. The word "discretion" connotes necessarily an act of a judicial character, and, as used with reference to discretion exercised judicially it implies the absence of a hard-and-fast rule, and it requires an actual exercise of judgment and a consideration of the facts and circumstances which are necessary to make a sound, fair and just determination, and a knowledge of the facts upon which the discretion may properly operate. 26. In Reliance Airport Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Airports Authority of India and Others the Supreme Court considered the various aspect and meaning of the term 'discetion' and observed as under: Though the word, "discretion" literally means and denotes an uncontrolled power of disposal yet in law, the meaning given to this word appears to be a power to decide within the limits allowed by positive rules of law as to the punishments, remedies or costs. This would mean that even if a person has a discretion to do something the said discretion has to be exercised within the limits allowed by positive rules of law. The literal (sic legal) meaning of the word "discretion" therefore, unmistakably avoids untrammeled or uncontrolled choice and more positively points out at there being a positive control of some judicial principles. 27. In Clariant International Ltd. and Another Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India the Supreme Court observed as under: The Board, further, having a discretionary jurisdiction must exercise the same strictly in accordance with law and judiciously. Such discretion must be a sound exercise in law. The discretionary jurisdiction, it is well known, although may be of wide amplitude as the expression "as it deems fit"-has been used but in view of the fact that civil consequences would ensue by reason thereof, the same must be, exercised fairly and bona fide. The discretion so exercised is subject to appeal as also judicial review, and, thus, must also answer the test of reasonableness. 28. The discretion so exercised is subject to appeal as also judicial review, and, thus, must also answer the test of reasonableness. 28. An authority, which has - been entrusted to execute the statutory provisions for advancing the object of the statute cannot exercise its discretion arbitrarily in violation of the statutory provisions. Thus, an order passed in violation of the constitutional provision is not executable and the courts are under the obligation to declare it null and void and further to nullify its effect. 29. When the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. It has been hither to uncontroverted legal position that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim" Expressio unius est exclusio alterius", meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following other course is not permissible. (Vide Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D.426; AIR 1936 253 (Privy Council); Deep Chand Vs. The State of Rajasthan, ; Patna Improvement Trust Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Devi and Others, ; State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh and Others, ; Hukam Chand Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; Chettian Veetil Ammad and Another Vs. Taluk Land Board and Others, ; State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanna AIR 1980 SC 327; State of Mizoram Vs. Biakchhawna, ; J.N. Ganatra Vs. Morvi Municipality, Morvi, ; Haresh Dayaram Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, ; Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka etc. etc. (2001) 4 SCC 9 ; Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others, ; Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2004 SC 486 ; Ram Phal Kundu Vs. Kamal Sharma, ; and Indin Bank's Association v. Devkala Consultancy Service, AIR 2004 SC 2615 ; and Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Shimla Vs. Prem Lata Sood and Others, 30. Mere continuation in possession in pursuance of an void order does not confer any legal right to retain the possession thereof. Kamal Sharma, ; and Indin Bank's Association v. Devkala Consultancy Service, AIR 2004 SC 2615 ; and Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Shimla Vs. Prem Lata Sood and Others, 30. Mere continuation in possession in pursuance of an void order does not confer any legal right to retain the possession thereof. The order which is void ab initio at the stage of its inception cannot be sanctified at a later stage even by change of circumstances. A wrong doer cannot be permitted to make the profit out of his own wrong. There is no obligation on the part of the Court to uphold the backdoor and illegal entry in contravention of the statutory provisions. More so, if a person who enters from back door should be kicked through that door and cannot be permitted to raise any grievance any where. (Vide. Dr M.A. Haque and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, ; State of U.P. and others Vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association and others, ; Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others Upen Chandra Gogoi Vs. State of Assam and Others, ; Satchidananda Mishra Vs. State of Orissa and Others, ; and. Regional Manager, S.B.I. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, and Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others, ). 31. In C. Albert Morris Vs. K. Chandrasekaran and Others, the Apex Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. 32. In the instant case, the admitted facts remain as under: (i) No advertisement had ever been issued for inviting the application for allotment of the shop room as required under Regulations, 1970. (ii) The Regulation provides advertisement by giving due publicity and publication in minimum three newspapers having wide circulation, but nothing is on record, it was found advertised on the notice board of the Housing Board Corporation. (iii) Petitioner and opposite party No. 3 applied for allotment without any advertisement and also deposited the full consideration. (iv) The Allotment Committee of the Board made an allotment in favour of the opposite party No. 3 without following any procedure prescribed by law. (v) The reservation provided in the Statutory Regulation, 1970, had not been given effect to. (iii) Petitioner and opposite party No. 3 applied for allotment without any advertisement and also deposited the full consideration. (iv) The Allotment Committee of the Board made an allotment in favour of the opposite party No. 3 without following any procedure prescribed by law. (v) The reservation provided in the Statutory Regulation, 1970, had not been given effect to. (vi) The allotment in favour of the opposite party No. 3 is de hors the statutory Regulations. 33. In view of the above, as the order of allotment is in violation of the Statutory provisions and has been made just to favour the opposite party No. 3, does not deserve to be sanctified under any circumstances. Even if opposite party No. 3 is in possession of the shop room since long, that would not confer any legal right to her to save the allotment as it is admittedly in violation of the mandate of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution. In view thereof, the allotment in favour of opposite party No. 3 is declared to be void and remains unenforceable and unexecutable. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to make fresh allotment strictly in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No cost. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 34. I agree.