- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:25 WP No. 106786 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 106786 OF 2015 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: GRAMEENA ABHIRUDDHI AND SAMUHA SIKSHANA SAMITHI, R/BY ITS TRUSTEE, MAHESH BELLAD S/O. SHIVAPUTRA BELLAD AGE: 70 YEARS, R/O. “GOURI KRUPA”, MARATHA COLONY ROAD, DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA V.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. F.V.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRESIDENT HUBLI-DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SUB-COMMITTEE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF CIVIC AMENITY SITES, NAVNAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER HUBLI-DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NAVNAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. THE PRESIDENT HUBLI-DHARWAD MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.29 10:13:41 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:25 WP No. 106786 of 2015 4. THE PRESIDENT REVIVAL FOUNDATION SIKSHANA SAMITHI, NO.37, RUDRAGANGA LAYOUT, DOLLARS COLONY, AIRPORT ROAD, POST BOX NO. 415, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 5. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT MULTI STORAGE BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. B.SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. VEERESH R.BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4; SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.05.2015 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN REVISION PETITION NO.2013 (UDD257 BeMaPra2013) VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:25 WP No. 106786 of 2015 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court calling in question resolution/recommendation dated 22.12.2012, whereby the civic amenity site bearing plot No.69, block No.345 of Gamanagatti village, came to be allotted in favour of respondent No.4 and the consequential order dated 16.05.2015 passed by the revisional authority dismissing the petitioner’s revision petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a public charitable educational trust and was an eligible applicant for civic amenity site. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the competent authority while considering multiple applications including that of the petitioner, has failed to apply the mandatory parameters under Rule 7 of the Karnataka Urban - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:25 WP No. 106786 of 2015 Development Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules 1991 (for short ‘Rules 1991’) which prescribed the selection criteria governing allotment of civic amenity site. It is further contended that the resolution dated 22.12.2012 is a cryptic and does not disclose comparative assessment. Further that the revisional authority has failed to examine the statutory valuation and has dismissed the revision petition by a non speaking order. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vyshali Mahila Samaj, by its President Vs. State of Karnataka, by Secretary to Government, Housing and Another1 (Vyshali Mahila Samaj). 4. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of their objections filed, have contended that, the allotment was made by a duly constituted Committee after considering the applications received and that respondent 1 ILR 2004 Kar 2297 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:25 WP No. 106786 of 2015 No.4 was found suitable for allotment and the decision is an administrative one, not warranting any interference. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in support of his objections specifically contends that, the petitioner/institution has been allotted civic amenity sites through other institutions of the petitioner, and that the petitioner is not entitled for further allotment. This Court vide order dated 04.11.2025 directed the petitioner to file an affidavit. 6. Pursuant to the order dated 04.11.2025, the petitioner has filed affidavit categorically stating that it has no connection whatsoever with the institutions referred to in Exs.R.1 to R.4 of the statement of objections. 7. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Having heard the learned counsels, the point that would arise for consideration is; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:25 WP No. 106786 of 2015 Whether the allotment of civic amenity site in favour of respondent No.4 is sustainable in law having regard to Rule 7 of the Rules, 1991 and as per the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vyshali Mahila Samaj ? 9. Rule 7 of the Rules 1991, which reads as under; “7. Principles of selection of Institutions for leasing out Civic Amenity Sites.-(1) The Authority shall consider the case of each institution on its merits and shall have special regard to the following principles in making the selection- (a) The objectives and activities of the institution and public cause served by it since its establishment; (b) The financial position of the institution; (c) The present location of the institution; (d) The benefit likely to accrue to the general public of the locality by allotment of the civic amenity site; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:25 WP No. 106786 of 2015 (e) The bona fide and genuineness of the institution as made out in the annual reports, audit report etc.; (f) The need of the civic amenity site by the institution for providing the civic amenity in question. (2) For the purpose of sub-rule (1), the authority may constitute a separate committee to be called "Civic Amenity Site Allotment Committee" consisting of three Official members and three non-official members. The Chairman of the Authority shall be the chairman of the civic amenity site allotment Committee. (3) Subject to the approval of the authority, the decision of the Civic Amenity Site Allotment Committee shall be final.” 10. Rule 7 of the Rules 1991 mandates that the authority shall consider the case of each of the institution on its merits, having special regard to the six enumerated criteria namely the objectives of the institution, the financial position, the present location, benefit likely to accrue to the general public, bonafides and genuineness of the institution and the need of civic amenity site by the institution. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:25 WP No. 106786 of 2015 use of expression “shall” make the provisions mandatory to be followed. This Court in the case of Vyshali Mahila Samaj has held at paragraph Nos.7 and 8 as under; “7. I have carefully examined the order under review with reference to the aforesaid rules and the provisions of the Act. By a careful reading of Rule 3(3) of the Rules. It is clear that due publicity has to be given in respect of allotment of civic amenity site which is earmarked in the layout plan. The 2nd respondent has not produced any material to show that the said statutory requirement has been complied with. By a perusal of Annexure-F, it is clear that the authority has considered the application of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and recommended for allotment of civic amenity site in question in favour of the 3rd respondent without following the principles enumerated under Clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 7(1) of the Rules for the purpose of allotting the civic amenity site. Therefore, there is blatant violation of the above said Statutory Rules by the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned resolution at Annexure-F which resolution has been approved by the first respondent though, it is not necessary under law. The Supreme Court in the case reported in BABU VERGHESE AND OTHERS vs BAR - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:25 WP No. 106786 of 2015 COUNCIL OF KERALA AND OTHERS considering the Privy Council Judgment in NAZIR AHMAD vs KING EMPEROR and its earlier judgments reported in RAO SHIV BAHADUR SINGH vs STATE OF U.P. DEEP CHAND vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN and STATE OF U.P. vs SINGHARA SINGH has at paragraphs 31 and 32 clearly held as follows:— “31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable, to the decision in TAYLOR vs TAYLOR which was followed by Lord Roche in NAZIR AHMED vs KIND EMPEROR who stated as under: “Where a power is given to do certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all.” (32) This Rule has since been approved by this Court in RAO SHIV BAHADUR SINGH vs STATE OF U.P and again in DEEP CHAND vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN. These cases were considered by a Three Judge Bench of this Court in STATE OF U.P. vs ZINBHARA SINGH and the rule laid down in NAZEER AHMED CASE was again upheld. This Rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:25 WP No. 106786 of 2015 by Courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law.” 8. In the absence of producing any material documents by respondents 1 and 2 to show that the 2nd respondent before passing the resolution at Annexure-F, has complied with the mandatory requirement of due publicity as required under Rule 3(3) of the Rules, it amounts that it has not complied with the mandatory requirements as provided in the said Rule. Therefore, the action of passing the resolution by the 2nd respondent is contrary to the statutory and mandatory duty by it as held by the Supreme Court in the case referred to supra. Further, the 2nd respondent has not complied with Rule 7(1) in not examining the claim of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent keeping in view the guiding principles enumerated under Clauses (a) to (f) of the above said Rule. This is also one more error which has crept in, in the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent which important aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the first respondent at the time of approving the resolution of the 2nd respondent Though, non-compliance of Rules 3(3) and 7(1) of the Rules was not urged in the Writ Petition, this Court should have examined the legality and validity of the order from the record of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:25 WP No. 106786 of 2015 the respondents 1 and 2 while exercising its writ of certiorari jurisdiction keeping in view the law applicable to the case on hand. However, this Court has not noticed the above said provisions of the Act and Rules referred to supra which is one of the ground for reviewing the impugned order in this petition as it has rendered the impugned order void- ab initio in law for non-compliance of the mandatory statutory duty by respondent No.2.” 11. This Court has categorically held that the non- consideration of the parameters under Rule 7 of the Rules 1991 vitiates the allotment and renders such allotment void ab initio, being arbitrary and contrary to the statutory mandate. In the present case, on perusal of the resolution dated 22.12.2012, it is evident that the allotment committee has not recorded even a semblance of reasoning nor has it demonstrated consideration of Rule 7 of the Rules 1991 parameters. The resolution merely states that the respondent No.4 is suitable, however, without disclosing as to why the petitioner was found unsuitable and how the statutory parameter was satisfied. The revisional authority - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:25 WP No. 106786 of 2015 who is the appellate authority, instead of rectifying the illegality that has been passed in the resolution dated 22.12.2012, has dismissed the revision petition by a cryptic order without addressing the statutory violation pointed out by the petitioner. 12. This Court also takes note of the affidavit filed by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 04.11.2025, wherein the petitioner had categorically stated that it has no connection whatsoever with the institution preferred in any of the Annexures [Exs.R.1 to 4]. 13. The impugned order at Annexure-C and order passed by the revisional authority suffers from patent illegality, and warranting interference by this Court. The ratio laid down in the case of Vyshali Mahila Samaj aptly applies to the facts of the present case and the point framed for consideration is answered accordingly. Hence, this Court pass the following; - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:25 WP No. 106786 of 2015 ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The resolution/ recommendation dated 22.12.2012 allotting the civic amenity site dated 22.12.2012 allotting the civic amenity site bearing plot No.69, block No.345 of Gamanagatti village in favour of respondent No.4 is hereby quashed and the order dated 16.05.2015 passed by the revisional authority by dismissing the petitioner’s revision petition is also hereby set aside. iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 for fresh consideration, and pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with Rule 7 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1991 and as per the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:25 WP No. 106786 of 2015 law laid down in Vyshali Mahila Samaj case after affording the opportunity to all the eligible applicants, such consideration shall be completed within a reasonable period that is preferably three [3] months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, till such consideration, the respondents shall not take any coercive action against the respondent No.4. iv) All the conditions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA PJ/ Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34