Judgment : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29-3-2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in Smt. H.B. Premakumari v State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 6585 of 2012 dismissing the writ petition the petitioner has filed the present appeal. 2. The appellant was allotted a site bearing No.254, in 9th Phase, 3rd Block, J.P. Nagar Extension, measuring 40 feet x 60 feet, on 26-2-1998. At the time of filing the application a sum of Rs. 3,440/- was paid by the appellant. The balance site value of Rs. 2,86,460/- had to be deposited by the appellant in 90 days, from the date of receipt of allotment letter. The same was not said inspite of a long lapse of time. The allotment made in favour of the appellant was cancelled by letter dated 18-8-1999. 3. Thereafter, it is the case of the appellant that several representations were made. They were not considered favourably. Ultimately, the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, ‘B.D.A.’) issued the impugned endorsement, rejecting the plea of the appellant. Questioning the endorsement, the instant writ petition was filed, which was dismissed. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that in terms of Rule 13 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, an extension of time requires to be granted, in view of the fact that the appellant belongs to Scheduled caste. It is further submitted that in terms of equity, the time granted requires to be extended. 5. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions advanced by the appellant, so far as the applicability of Rule 13 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, and held that in terms of the Rules, even if time is to be extended, the same can be extended upto 90+60+150 days i.e., about 300 days, that too by paying appropriate interest. However, the appellant did not take the benefit of the provision. No payment was before 300 days. Therefore, the same could not be applied at the belated stage. Under these circumstances, the writ petition was dismissed. 6. On considering the contentions, we are of the considered view that there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge that calls for interference. The allotment has been made as far as in the year 1998 and it was cancelled in the year 1999. Under these circumstances, the writ petition was dismissed. 6. On considering the contentions, we are of the considered view that there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge that calls for interference. The allotment has been made as far as in the year 1998 and it was cancelled in the year 1999. There is no ground made out as to how the B.D.A. could extend the time in terms of Law. Even otherwise, the relief sought for in the writ petition is to quash the endorsement rejecting the request of the appellant and for a mandamus to direct the respondent to allot a site. Even if they are to be allowed, the cancellation made in favour of the appellant in the year 1999, would still continue. 7. For all these reasons, the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. The dismissal of this writ appeal would not prevent the appellant from making a fresh application seeking a fresh allotment from the B.D.A.