JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner is knocking at the doors of writ court with the following prayer: "(a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents that in lieu of withdrawal direct the BDA to allot one plot/ stray plot in Banashankara stages, 4, 5 and 6 and Arkavathi layouts, bangalore and execute the lease cum sale agreement or sale deed directing the respondent BDA to receive the entire consideration together with interest, i.e., at the cost of his earlier allotment of Plot No.444, as the cancellation is contrary statutory provisions of BDA Act from the petitioner;" 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that his client belongs to Schedule Caste and that he was offered a site vide Allotment Letter dtd. 21/2/2003; however he had great financial difficulty and therefore, he could not make payment in terms of the condition incorporated in the Allotment Letter; in view of that, his client has withdrawn the amount deposited by way of initial payment. That being the position, the Court should ask the BDA to show the mercy, regard being had to multiple attempts he has made for securing a one single site. Learned counsel heavily banks upon the proviso to Rule 13 of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984. 3. Learned Panel counsel appearing for the BDA opposes the petition contending that since on his own the Petitioner has withdrawn the initial deposit specifically pleading financial requirement for the payment of college fees of this daughter, now he cannot turn around and claim that the allotment should be restored or that some other site should be allotted. He loudly reads BDA's Endorsement dtd. 6/10/2009 (Annexure-H) which the petitioner himself has produced. He also repels the invokation of proviso to the subject Rule in the fact matrix of the case. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made by learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the BDA that the allottee of a site cannot turn around and complain that he should be given allotment even when no amount is paid or that even when the initial amount paid by him has been withdrawn unconditionally on his own. The contra contention of petitioner if accepted would amount to placing premium on his approbation and reprobation which the writ courts often bank upon to deny relief sought for in equitable jurisdiction. 5. Learned Panel Counsel for the BDA is more than justified in contending that the proviso to Rule 13 of the 1984 Rules is not at all invokable. Ordinarily, the proviso is treated as an exception to the general norm incorporated in the main. The petitioner should broadly fit into the norm first and then he should escape from it's clutches by showing the special circumstances which the proviso takes cognizance of for according some reprieve. That has not happened in this case, no special circumstances having been pointed out. 6. The last contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that his client belongs to Schedule Caste and therefore, leniency has to be shown by treating his case as a mercy petition, is bit difficult to countenance. The Writ Court can entertain only a writ petition, not a mercy petition, since constitutional jurisdiction is to be exercised on the basis of established rights and not on ground of the kind now urged. The contra contention will lay a very bad precedent for such other matters, which if decided on grounds of mercy, would cause a great prejudice to the public interest. In view of the above, writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is, costs having been made reluctantly easy.