Judgment :- 1. The petitioner claims to be a social worker. He has come forward to challenge an order of the 1st respondent State Government made in G.O.2(D) No.211 Housing and Urban Development (Ve.Va 5(1)) Department dated 06.05.2010. By the said Government Order, the Government allotted the Plot No.C-30/A, 8th Cross Street, Kurinji Nagar, Ramapuram, Chennai under the discretionary quota of the State Government to the 4th respondent. It is seen from the said order that originally the said plot was allotted in favour of one T.Sivakumar under the Social Worker category and it was allotted on the basis of payment under the instalment basis. The said allotment made in G.O.(2D) No.80 dated 3.2.2010 came to be challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.7819 of 2010. Even during the pendency of the Writ Petition, it transpires that the said Sivakumar informed the Government that he is unable to purchase the plot due to his family circumstances and he requested the Government to cancel the said allotment. Accordingly, when the Government was about to cancel, the 4th respondent, who is an employee working in the Directorate of Collegiate Education department made an application on 26.4.2010 asking for allotment under discretionary quota under the unblemished Government servant category. The State Government accepting his request issued the impugned G.O., dated 6.5.2010. The petitioner on seeing the said G.O., sent a legal notice challenging the allotment made in favour of the 4th respondent and thereafter filed the present Writ Petition. 2. The Writ Petition was directed to be posted along with the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.7819 of 2010. However, since the allotment in favour of the said T.Sivakumar has been cancelled, the said Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous. While ordering notice on the Writ Petition, this Court granted an interim stay, which was subsequently extended from time to time. 3. The grievance projected by the petitioner was that the petitioner has been in the queue for allotment under the social worker category and when he came to know that the plot in question is vacant and it is allotted in favour of Sivakumar, he made a representation and despite the fact that he was seen in the waiting list, it has been illegally allotted to the 4th respondent. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that though the plot was coming under the discretionary quota of the Housing Board, the Government has power to allot the vacant plots under the Government quota and the petitioner cannot challenge the same and there is no right in favour of the petitioner to challenge such an allotment under the discretionary quota. Though earlier the petitioner was informed that such plot is coming under the Board quota, subsequently while allotting the plot in favour of Sivakumar, it is converted into Government quota. It is also stated that the 4th respondent was allotted under the unblemished Government servant quota in terms of the impugned G.O. Under G.O.Ms.No.88, Housing and Urban Development dated 20.5.2003, the plots/houses/flats can be allotted to Government discretionary quota and the list of categories, who are beneficiaries under the said quota has been listed out in the said G.O, which includes as many as 15 categories. In item No.6, persons who are achievers in various fields such as Science, Arts, Literature, Economic, Public Administration and Sports can be allotted such plots under the discretionary quota. It is also added that said entry includes even unblemished Government Servant category. 5. Though this Court would have gone into the very question of allotting the plots/houses/flats on the basis of so called Government Discretionary quota, it is unnecessary to do so, since the Government, realising on its own fault, has itself issued G.O.Ms.No.6, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 7.1.2011, abolishing all the quotas from the date of the order, namely 7.1.2011. It is also stated in the said order that henceforth the allotments of all the plots/houses/flats will be converted into Housing Board allotment and they will be disposed of on the basis of the Rules framed by the Housing Board. 6. In view of the subsequent development that the Government has decided not to allot any more plots under the discretionary quota and also the fact that the petitioner's contention that he should be allotted instead of the 4th respondent is also not in tune with the said policy, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits or demerits of the contentions of the petitioner. It is suffice to state that such discretionary is also repugnant to rule under law and violates equal protection under the Constitution and the said discretion has been removed as there has been widespread skepticism in the country to such quotas. 7. In the light of the above, the Court is unable to grant any relief to the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.