ORDER : 1. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner, interalia, has assailed the validity of the communication dated 20.08.2019 by which the representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by a cryptic order. The petitioner also seeks for a writ of mandamus to requantify the sital value of the plot as has been done in the case of similarly situated persons. 3. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a sports person with distinguished achievement in the field of sports and has been conferred with several medals for her achievement in weight lifting. As per 11(i) of the Bengaluru Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules 1984, the persons who have outstanding achievement in the field of sports are entitled to be allotted sites in the layouts formed by the Bengaluru Development Authority (‘the BDA’ for short). 4. The petitioner submitted an application for allotment of site. The application submitted by the petitioner was placed before the Board of the BDA and the Board vide its resolution dated 14.02.2008 resolved to allot sites to 15 persons under category ‘B’ by collecting the allotment price at the prevalent rates. Thereafter an order of allotment was issued in favour of the petitioner on 31.10.2013 by which Site No.62 in Chandra Layout, Kempapura Agrahara layout was allotted to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.59,74,461/. The petitioner paid the aforesaid amount. Thereafter the petitioner learnt that two similarly situated persons in respect of whom the decision was taken by the BDA under the resolution dated 14.02.2008, different sital value has been fixed and they have been allotted sites at a concessional rate. The petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition viz., W.P.No.34402/2017 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by order dated 08.04.2019 with a direction to the BDA to decide the claim of the petitioner for refund of the amount in relation to excess of the sital value collected by the BDA and to take a decision within a period of eight weeks. However, by impugned communication dated 20.08.2019, the representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected in a cryptic and cavalier manner. In the aforesaid factual background, this writ petition is filed. 5. However, by impugned communication dated 20.08.2019, the representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected in a cryptic and cavalier manner. In the aforesaid factual background, this writ petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 06.01.2016 rendered in W.A.No.1735/2015. It is further submitted that the aforesaid decision has attained finality and the BDA has acted upon it. It is also submitted that BDA being the instrumentality of the State cannot subject the petitioner to discrimination in the matter of fixation of sital value. It is also submitted that the impugned order is cryptic and suffers from the vice of non application of mind inasmuch as no cogent reasons have been assigned for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for refund of the sital value. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the BDA and submitted that the petitioner has already paid the amount and in the Division Bench decision dated 06.01.2016, the appellant therein had approached this Court before making payment of the amount. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek refund of the amount. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records. Admittedly, the BDA is a statutory body which is supposed to act in a fair, rational and reasonable manner. It is not in dispute that the respondent in WA No.1735/2015 was covered by the resolution dated 14.02.2008 in which the name of the petitioner herein was also included. It is also not in dispute that the respondent in WA No.1735/2015 has been allotted site at a concessional rate. The petitioner is also similarly situate person and the respondent cannot subject the petitioner to discrimination in view of the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered under the same resolution under which the plot to the respondent in WA No.1735/2015 was allotted at a concessional rate. Therefore, the BDA has not acted in a fair, rational and reasonable manner. 8. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 20.08.2019 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is hereby quashed. Therefore, the BDA has not acted in a fair, rational and reasonable manner. 8. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 20.08.2019 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is hereby quashed. The competent authority of the BDA is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner for refund of the amount in the light of the order dated 06.01.2016 passed in WA No.1735/2015 which has attained finality bearing in mind the fact that the petitioner is entitled to parity in the matter of fixation of sital value of the site allotted to her. Let the claim of the petitioner for refund of the amount be decided within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.