ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayers: a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the impugned order dated 07.04.2021 passed in IC No.487/2020 by the Inquiry Committee vide Annexure-H. b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to confirm the allotment of bearing Sy No.L209 measuring 50 feet x 80 feet situated at HSR Layout, 6th Sector, Bengaluru, as per Annexure A in favour of the petitioner and subsequently direct the Respondent No.1 to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. 2. Heard Sri.Prabhuling K.Navadgi, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner was allotted site bearing Sy.No.L-209 measuring 50 ft x 80 ft situated at HSR Layout, 6th Sector, Bengaluru vide allotment letter dated 30.11.2010. It is averred that the petitioner has paid the entire sale consideration to the respondent No.1 - Authority. It is further averred that W.P.No.23475/2010 came to be filed before this Court challenging the action of the State Government and the BDA in allotting stray sites under G category to various persons. It is also averred that this Court vide order dated 25.08.2012 in the said writ petition, has declared that sites allotted by the BDA under G category are illegal. By virtue of the said order, the respondent No.2 has constituted a Committee to consider the applications of each of the applicant as to whether the site could be saved or resumed. The said Committee, after providing an opportunity to the petitioner, has held that the petitioner is not eligible for allotment and therefore, recommended the respondent No.1 - Authority to cancel and resume the site allotted to the petitioner. 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, Rule 10 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of sites) Rules, 1984 has been amended with effect from 14.12.2005 vide notification dated 13.04.2022 and this site has been allotted on 30.11.2010. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law. The said submission with regard to the amendment is not disputed by Shri.K.Krishna, learned counsel for the BDA and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 5. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law. The said submission with regard to the amendment is not disputed by Shri.K.Krishna, learned counsel for the BDA and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances in W.P.No.6263/2022, a co-ordinate Bench has allowed the writ petition by setting aside the recommendation of the Committee placing reliance on the amended Rules. The said submission is fairly not disputed by the learned counsel for the BDA. 6. The Committee has recorded in para 18 of the order that the disqualification of allotment is as per Rule 10 of the Rules. The said Rule having been amended retrospectively with effect from 14.12.2005, disqualification shall not apply in the instant case. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and hence, the following: Order (i) Writ petition is allowed; and (ii) Order dated 07.04.2021 passed in Inquiry Case No. 487/2020 is quashed. 7. In view of disposal of this petition, I.A.No.1/2023 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of. No orders as to costs.