JUDGMENT Alok Aradhe, Actg. C.J. - In both these writ petitions, a common issue with regard to validity of an order allotting the civic amenity site in favour of Karnataka State Kumbara Maha Sangha (hereinafter referred to as 'the Association' for short) is involved. Therefore, both these writ petitions were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. For the facility of reference, facts from W.P. No. 13476/2013 are being referred to. 2. The Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' for short) is constituted under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). It issued a public notice dated 30.10.2008 inviting bidders to purchase sites No. 28, 29 and 30 in Banashankari III Stage Layout. The petitioner submitted an application and participated in an auction and had offered the highest bid amount of Rs. 53,09,024/-. After payment of the aforesaid amount, the petitioner was allotted site bearing No. 29 and possession was handed over to him. After obtaining possession of the site, the petitioner constructed a residential building on the site. The petitioner was informed by the Authority that adjoining site is reserved to be used as a open space. 3. However, it appears that Association had submitted a representation to the State Government. Thereupon the State Government accorded approval for allotment of site measuring 50 x 80 feet. The association submitted a representation to the Authority on 03.08.2010 that site bearing No. 3486 be allotted to it. Thereafter, another representation was submitted on 19.08.2010 seeking allotment of site measuring 60 x 100 feet in Banashankari III Stage. 4. On the basis of the representation submitted by the Association, the Commissioner directed to make a search for the site and thereafter, the Commissioner of the BDA approved the allotment of a larger site bearing civic amenity Site No. 1 measuring approximately 10,200 situate in Banashankari III Stage for a period of 30 years to the Association and the same was approved by the Chairman of the Board. Thereafter, a resolution was passed on 25.09.2010 allotting the site to the petitioner and an order of allotment was issued in favour of the Association on 13.10.2010. A lease cum sale agreement was registered in favour of the Association on 19.11.2010. 5. Thereafter, a resolution was passed on 25.09.2010 allotting the site to the petitioner and an order of allotment was issued in favour of the Association on 13.10.2010. A lease cum sale agreement was registered in favour of the Association on 19.11.2010. 5. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation on 05.02.2011 stating that he had purchased a site No. 29 in a public auction and in the notification, it was mentioned that in front of site No. 29, Site No. 30 is situate, which is an open space. However, the aforesaid open space has been allotted in a clandestine manner to the Association. The petitioner therefore, sought reinstatement of the site as per the original layout plan. The petitioner thereafter, again submitted a representation on 20.09.2012. 6. Taking note of the representation submitted by the petitioner, the Authority sent a communication dated 07.11.2012 addressed to the State Government, in which it was stated that it is advisable to convert civic amenity Site to Association as a play ground and to allot an alternative site to the Association. However, no further action was taken. In the aforesaid factual background, these petitions have been filed inter alia on the ground that allotment has been made in contravention of Rule 3 of the Rules. 7. The petitioners have sought the relief of writ of certiorari for quashment of notice dated 16.07.2010 as well as quashment of order of allotment dated 13.10.2010. The petitioners also seek quashment of possession certificate. A bench of this court by an ad interim order dated 20.03.2013 had restrained the Association from carrying out any construction work. Admittedly, the site in question is a vacant plot. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the allotment has been made in favour of the Association in contravention of Rule 3 of the Rules. It is further submitted that under Section 65 of the Act, the Government has not power to issue a direction to the Authority to allot a civic amenity site to anyone in contravention of the Rules. Alternatively, it is submitted that in any case, the approval was granted by the State Government in respect of 4,000 square feet of land whereas, 10,200 square feet of land has been allotted to the Association, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Alternatively, it is submitted that in any case, the approval was granted by the State Government in respect of 4,000 square feet of land whereas, 10,200 square feet of land has been allotted to the Association, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on decision in Bangalore Development Authority And Othes Vs. R. Hanumaiah And Others', 2005 AIR SCW 4881. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the authority submitted that the authority has allotted the civic amenity site in view of direction issued by the State Government. Learned counsel for the State Government submitted that even though the Government had issued a direction, the Authority ought to have complied with the Rules. Learned counsel for the Association has supported the order passed by the State Government. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record. It is trite law that distribution of a state largesse has to be made in a fair and transparent manner and public auction is the preferred method. The Rule of law requires that vide publicity has to be given before allotment of a public property is made. [See: City Industrial Development Corpn. vs. Platinum Entertainment (2015) 1 SCC 558 and Nova Ads vs. Metropolitan Transport Corpn. (2015) 13 SCC 257 and Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others' (2018) 6 SCC 1 ]. 11. The aforesaid salutary requirement of law is incorporated in the rules pertaining to allotment of civic amenity sites by the Authority. The Rules are known as the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short). Rule 3 of the Rules deals with offer of civic amenity sites for allotment, which reads as under: 3. Offer of civic amenity sites for allotment: (1) The authority may out of the civil amenity sites available in any area reserve such number of sites for the purpose of providing civil amenity referred to in sub-clauses (i) and (v) of clause (bb) of section 2, by the Central Government or the State Government. Offer of civic amenity sites for allotment: (1) The authority may out of the civil amenity sites available in any area reserve such number of sites for the purpose of providing civil amenity referred to in sub-clauses (i) and (v) of clause (bb) of section 2, by the Central Government or the State Government. (2) After making reservation under sub-rule (1) the authority may, subject to Section 38-A and general or special orders of the Government and having regard to the particulars type of civic amenity required to be provided in any locality offer such of the remaining civic amenity sites for the purposes of allotment on lease basis to any institution. Provided that the authority shall while so offering the civic amenity sites reserve eighteen per cent of such sites for being allotted to an institution established exclusively for the benefit of Schedule Castes the majority of members of which consists of persons belonging to Schedule Castes and three per cent of such sites to an institution established exclusively for the benefit of scheduled Tribes the majority of members of which consists of persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes and two per cent of such sites for being allotted to an institution established for benefit of physically and mentally disabled belonging to the Scheduled Casts and the scheduled Tribes and if at the time of making allotment sufficient number of such institutions are not available the remaining sites so reserved may be allotted to other institutions. (3) Due publicity shall be given in respect of civic amenity sites so offered for leasing to the institutions, specifying their location, number, dimension, purpose, and last date for submission of application and such other particulars as the Commissioner may consider necessary, by affixing a notice in the notice board of the office of the authority and also by publishing in not less than two daily news papers in English and Kannada having vide circulation in the City of Bangalore. Thus a civic amenity site can be allotted by issuance of a notice, which has to be published in two daily newspapers in English and Kannada Language having vide circulation in the city of Bangalore. 12. Admittedly, in the instant case, no notice was published in two daily newspapers in English and Kannada having vide circulation in the City of Bangalore. The Association submitted an application, which was approved by the State Government. 12. Admittedly, in the instant case, no notice was published in two daily newspapers in English and Kannada having vide circulation in the City of Bangalore. The Association submitted an application, which was approved by the State Government. Section 65 of the Act deals with power of the Government to issue directions to the Authority, which is reproduced below for the facility of reference: 65. Government's power to give directions to the Authority.-The Government may give such directions to the Authority as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act, and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply with such directions. 13. Thus, directions can be issued by the State Government to the Authority, which in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Section 65 of the Act does not empower the Government to issue a direction to allot civic amenity site in contravention of the Rules. Therefore, the direction issued by the state Government in the instant case, was not binding on the Authority. The Authority, in any case, was required to follow the mandate contained in Rule 3 of the Rules by inviting applications. The aforesaid requirement of inviting applications and publication of the notice in two newspapers have not admittedly been complied with in the instant case. The allotment therefore, has been made in contravention of Rule 3 of the Rules. In view of preceding analysis the impugned memorandum dated 16.07.2010 (Annexure-E) as well as letter of allotment dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure-K) and the possession certificate dated 19.11.2010 issued in favour of the Association are hereby quashed. In the result, the writ petitions succeed and are hereby allowed.