- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10948 WP No. 8269 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 8269 OF 2021 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. B. KARUNAKARAN S/O. BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.189, TANK BUND ROAD 1ST CROSS ETTIGE GUDU INDIRANAGARA MYSORE - 570 010 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESHA T.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001 2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANASI LAXMIBAI ROAD MYSORE - 570 005 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGANNA K.P., AGA FOR R-1 SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO ALLOTMENT OF G CATEGORY Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10948 WP No. 8269 of 2021 SITE VIDE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 10.1.2006 ANNEXURE-N AND PERTAINING TO ALLOTMENT G CATEGORY SITE VIDE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED.03.10.2007 IN ANENXURE-S2, CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO ALLOTMENT OF G CATEGORY SITE AS REFLECTED IN ANENXURE-T1 AND T2, DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT G CATEGORY SITE TO PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for calling of records relating to allotment with respect to the allotment letter dated 10.01.2006 at Annexure-'N' pertaining to allotment of 'G' category site which the petitioner submits must be read as 'J' category. The petitioner has further sought for summoning of records pertaining to allotment of 'J' category site as reflected at Annexures-'T1' and 'T2'. The petitioner has also sought for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot 'J' category site to the petitioner in accordance with law. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that Schemes were formed for identification of eligible persons as - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10948 WP No. 8269 of 2021 beneficiaries in the Government Schemes including allotment of sites. It is submitted that the petitioner is a distinguished personality having the record of being a Member of Twenty Point Programme in 1975 and had significant achievements in public life and accordingly, was identified for allotment of site under the Scheme which provides for allotment of site in the discretionary quota. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner has made application as at Annexure-'B2' on 01.01.1999 and subsequent reminders have been sent regarding the said application. The petitioner submits that allotment of site under the discretionary quota came to be cancelled as per the Government Circular at Annexure-'G' dated 07.11.2005. 4. It is submitted that though allotment of sites under the discretionary quota has been annulled, however, even subsequent to such Circulars allotment of sites under the discretionary quota has been made and refers to allotment at Annexure-'J'. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10948 WP No. 8269 of 2021 5. The petitioner further submits that there were several other allotments made even after the Circulars issued abolishing allotment of sites under the discretionary quota. It is also submitted that despite amendment to Rule 13(2)(J) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991 ('the Rules' for short) allotments have been made and accordingly, the petitioner is to be extended the same relief. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the order of this Court in W.P.Nos.16354- 16357/2017, wherein this Court has reiterated that the question of allotment on the basis of discretionary quota does not arise and while referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of K. Raju v. Bangalore Development Authority reported in ILR 2011 KAR 120, the Court has referred to the Circular dated 06.08.1997. 7. Heard both sides. The contention of petitioner is that as on the date of making of application at - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10948 WP No. 8269 of 2021 Annexure-'B', the provision of discretionary allotment under 'J' category was in force and the said provision came to be omitted only on 01.10.2005. It is further submitted that in terms of documents produced by the petitioner despite omission of the said provision on 01.10.2005, allotments have been made as is evidenced from the documents produced as Annexures along with the writ petition and accordingly, the petitioner on parity is required to be extended the relief of direction to allot a site in 'J' category as has been done post 01.10.2005. The petitioner submits that he is otherwise in all respects eligible for the benefit of allotment in 'J' category. 8. It must be noticed that writ of mandamus could be issued to enforce the legal right. As on date, there is no right for the petitioner to claim allotment under 'J' category by virtue of omission of Rule 13(2)(j) of the Rules. 9. The fact that Rule was in existence as on the date of making of application would be of no consequence, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10948 WP No. 8269 of 2021 as the right that is sought to be enforced ought to be looked into at the time when the Court issues writ. In the absence of Rule, the question of issuing writ to the respondent Authorities does not arise. The omission of Rule 13(2)(j) of the Rules does not in any way protect the rights of petitioner, as the petitioner did not have any vested or accrued right for allotment as sought for. The very nature of request itself is dependent on discretionary to be exercised by the Government. Mere continuance of allotment of sites post 01.10.2005 cannot create any right for parity, as parity cannot be contrary to law. It is also settled position of law that litigants cannot claim rights on negative equality. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after omission of Rule 13(2)(j) on 01.10.2005, the respondent Authorities have made allotment to ineligible persons. 11. Needless to state that such aspect is to be taken note of by respondent No.2 and is to have an - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10948 WP No. 8269 of 2021 in-house enquiry and to inquire into as to how and under what circumstances the allotments have been made post 01.10.2005 after omission of Rule 13(2)(j) of the Rules. In light of the observations made hereinabove, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR