1. These petitions are disposed of together having regard to the fact that the petitioner is common and the issues involved are identical.

2. The petitioner is an association registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KSR Act’, for brevity). It is comprised of members who are owners of houses or house sites in the residential layout known as ‘Manyatha Residency’ at Rachenahalli, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.

It is stated that M/s. Manyatha Promoters Private Limited has formed a residential layout in about 82 acres of land at Rachenahalli, duly approved by the Bangalore Development Authority (Hereinafter referred to as the `BDA’ for brevity).

It is claimed that as per the layout plan, the areas earmarked as civic amenity sites, open spaces and roads are all relinquished by the developer in favour of the BDA.

It is stated that one, of the principles that guide the allotment of a civic amenity site is “the benefit likely to accrue to the general public of the locality by the allotment of the civic amenity site and a need of the civic amenity site by the institution to provide the civil amenities in question”.

The allotment is to be made by a Committee known as the Civic Amenity Site Allotment Committee.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that without identifying the civic amenity required for the resident and without identifying each of the civic amenity site for the specific civic amenity, the BDA has, without following the prescribed procedure of giving wide publicity and inviting applications, had allotted the civic amenity sites bearing nos.5 and 6 to the Gas Authority of India Limited for the purpose of establishing its “Office Building and Regional Gas Management Centre”. This, according to the petitioner, is neither a civic amenity nor an amenity for the residents.

3. Similarly in the connected petition, it is alleged that the BDA has allotted civic amenity site no.2A and 2B to M/s Bennett Coleman and Company Limited, a company belonging to the Times of India Group of Companies and civic amenity site no.4 to M/s Syndicate Bank for the purpose of establishing their respective Corporate Offices.

4. Shri K.G. Raghavan, Senior Advocate, appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Rule 3 of the BDA (Allotment of Civic Amenity Site) Rules, 1989 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘1989 Rules’, for brevity) provides that the BDA may, out of the Civic Amenity Sites available in any area, reserve such number of sites for the purpose of providing civic amenity referred to in Section 2bb(i)(v) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Herein after referred to as the ‘BDA Act’, for brevity). This, coupled with the principles guiding the allotment of civic amenity sites at Rule 7(d) and (f) would make it abundantly clear that the civic amenity is an amenity that is provided for the residents of the layout.

There is no publicity afforded to the allotment as contemplated under Rule 3(3) of the 1989 Rules. Nor has the further procedure been followed of inviting applications from eligible applicants. It is contended that the allotment is illegal as neither the BDA Act nor the 1989 Rules permit the BDA to dispose of any civic amenity site for any purpose other than a civic amenity. The power of BDA under Section 2(bb)(vi) cannot be read in isolation, but has to be read in conjunction with the definition of the term `civic amenity’, which is to sub-serve the interest of the residents of the layout. It is contended that the BDA could not trade away the civic amenity site for extraneous considerations for commercial purposes unmindful of the necessity of the residents for space to provide civic amenities in the layout, which is spread over 82 acres.

It is contended that the State Government notifying Central Government and State Government Offices as a civic amenity site does not correspond to the scheme and intendment of Sec