JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner, a Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Society Registration Act, 1960 comprises of members who happen to be owners of houses/sites in a residential layout. It seeks to lay a challenge to the allotment of the subject sites in favour of the 4th respondent-Trust. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that: This civic amenity site having been reserved for educational purpose could not have been allotted for religious purpose; the 4th respondent not even being the applicant, no allotment could have been made in its favour. In support of his submission he banks upon a ruling of the Apex Court and of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 2. After service of notice, the respondent-State has entered appearance through the AGA. The respondent-BDA is represented by its Sr. Panel Counsel who has filed the Statement of Objections on 21/6/2022 opposing the petition. The respondent BBMP speaks through its Panel Advocate. The allottee-Trust is represented by a private counsel. All they make submission in justification of the impugned allotment and the conveyance that followed it. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (a) The subject site is designated as a civic amenity site, is not in dispute. A civic amenity site cannot be allotted for a purpose which does not partake the character of civic amenity, is also not disputed by the other side. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject civic amenity site is reserved for educational purpose and therefore cannot be allotted for any other purpose, is bit difficult to countenance when no notification reserving the said site for educational purpose having been produced or pointed out. The argument of petitioner's counsel that the subject site was earlier notified for educational purpose only and therefore it should be presumed that it was reserved for the said purpose, is too far fetched an argument. Earmarking a site as a civic amenity site is one thing and reserving it for one of the civic amenity purposes is another. The second has to be done by a notification consistent with Sec.38A of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 r/w Rule 3 of the extant Allotment Rules. Earmarking a site as a civic amenity site is one thing and reserving it for one of the civic amenity purposes is another. The second has to be done by a notification consistent with Sec.38A of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 r/w Rule 3 of the extant Allotment Rules. In other words, the definition of the term 'civic amenity' given under Sec.2(bb) of the Act being too inclusive, such a site can be allotted for the purpose of any of the civic amenities which under clause (iv) of Sec.2(bb) which includes religious purpose as well. (b) The vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10750/2013 between BHARAT PETROLEOUM CORPORATION LTD., vs. DR.HARISH V.IYER, decided on 29/11/2013 supports case of his client, is bit difficult to agree with. True it is that at para 14 there is discussion about the provisions of Secs.38 and 38A of the 1976 Act and Rule 3 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989. The case involved allotment of a civic amenity site to a bank when it was earmarked for a park. That is not the case here. This difference makes the decision uninvokable for the case at hands. It hardly needs to be stated that a decision is an authority for the proposition that it actually lays down in a given fact matrix and not for all that which logically follows from what has been so laid down vide QUINN vs. LEATHAM, 1901 AC 495. For the same reason much milk cannot be drawn from the Co-ordinate Bench decision in W.P.No.41717/2011 between MANYATA RESIDENTS ASSN. and ANOTHER vs. STATE and OTHERS decided on 6/3/2013. (c) The second submission of the petitioner's counsel that the 4th respondent-Trust had never applied for allotment of the subject site and therefore the allotment in question could not have been made in its favour, is bit difficult to countenance. The said respondent had applied for and was granted another site for the very same purpose, however, that grant did not materialize because of some litigation and therefore in lieu of that, this site has been allotted. In the scheme of the Act and the Rules promulgated thereunder there is nothing that militates against the same. The said respondent had applied for and was granted another site for the very same purpose, however, that grant did not materialize because of some litigation and therefore in lieu of that, this site has been allotted. In the scheme of the Act and the Rules promulgated thereunder there is nothing that militates against the same. In the fitness of things, the BDA is more than justified in allotting the subject site to the said respondent presumptively treating its earlier application as the one made under the subject notification. An argument to the contrary cannot be sustained without drying up the elements of justice, as rightly contended by learned Panel Counsel appearing for the BDA. It is relevant to note that petitioner's challenge to the very same allotment and to the very same conveyance in W.P.No.4257/2017 was not favoured by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dtd. 16/2/2017, wherein he had not pressed the scripted prayer for the cancellation of the very same lease dtd. 29/12/2012 which is reflected at internal page 3 of the said judgment. This apart, petitioner although had initially arrayed the 4th respondent herein as one of the respondents to the said writ petition, at a later point of time disarrayed him at his own risk. He did not reserve his right to prosecute this writ petition that was then pending. Petitioner after such deletion obtained only a direction to consider his representation in the said judgment. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned allotment even otherwise does not merit acceptance as rightly contended by learned BDA counsel. (e) There is one more factor that militates against the grant of the petition prayer for quashment of the allotment in question. In fact, petitioner himself had secured the allotment of the very same site earlier for the purpose of Community Hall. However, the same came to be rescinded because despite demand notice, it did not pay the entire allotment value, even after possession was given. All this in fairness ought to have been disclosed in the writ petition. However, there is no such disclosure. For a Writ Court conduct of the writ seeker is one of the relevant factors in granting or denying the relief. Nondisclosure of this relevant information which is arguably material to adjudication, is an added ground for denying relief. All this in fairness ought to have been disclosed in the writ petition. However, there is no such disclosure. For a Writ Court conduct of the writ seeker is one of the relevant factors in granting or denying the relief. Nondisclosure of this relevant information which is arguably material to adjudication, is an added ground for denying relief. Petitioner cannot be permitted to aprobate and reprobate as to the purpose of allotment of the subject site. This apart, pursuant to judgment dtd. 16/2/2017 in W.P.No.4257/2017, the respondent-BDA having considered petitioner's representation rejected it vide order dtd. 9/2/2018. There being no challenge to the same, no relief can be granted to the petitioner herein. In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed with a cost of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 (Rupees One Lakh) only payable by the petitioner to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within forty five days and delay, if any, would carry Rs.1, 000.00 per day, apart from the risk of contempt action.