Point of Law: What is required under Rule 7 of Rules 1991 is a comparative analysis to be made of each of applicants so as to determine who is best suited to receive a lease of civil amenity site and for what purpose.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. To quash the decision dated 13.03.2018 passed by the committee of the first respondent in so far as site vide Sl.No.31, Notified Sl.No.42, bearing Survey No.333, 336 and 337, measuring 1500 sq.m at Belavadi, Mysuru, in concerned vide Annexure-G

b. To direct the first respondent to allot the site vide Sl.No.31, Notified Sl.No.42, bearing Survey No.333, 336 and 337, measuring 1500 sq.m at Belavadi, Mysuru, by considering the representation dated 14.02.2018, vide Annexure-B, in favour of the petitioner

c. To grant such other relief/relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Respondent No.1-Mysore Urban Development Authority had invited applications from registered societies/bodies for disposal of civic amenities sites in various parts of Mysore city in accordance with the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenities Sites) Rules 1991. A public notification in daily newspaper has been published in this regard on 9.1.2018. There being several sites brought up for allotment, one of the sites in Sy. No.333, 336 and 337 measuring 1500 sq. mts at Belavadi.

3. In the notification, it is stated that the said land could be allotted for the purpose of Samudaya Bhavan/Shaishaknika/Aroghya that is to say Community Hall/Education/Health Centre. The petitioner applied for the allotment of the aforesaid property for the purpose of Samudhaya Bhavan/Community hall. The respondent No.2 applied for the allotment of the said site for the purpose of Samudhaya Bhavan /Shaishaknika/Aroghya that is to say Community Hall/Education/Health Centre.

4. Respondent No.1 after receiving various applications which had been submitted in regard to this particular property which numbered 15 allotted the said property to respondent No.2. It is aggrieved by the same petitioner is before this Court.

5. Sri. R.S.Ravi., learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that:

5.1. the allotment which has been made to respondent No.2 is contrary to the applicable law, inasmuch as the application was made for all three categories without indicating any particular category for which respondent No.2 wanted to use the property.

5.2. An application for allotment of civic amenity sites on a lease basis ought to be specific in nature. The petitioner having submitted its application for Samudaya Bhavan and respondent No.2 having submitted for Samudaya Bhavan/Shaishaknika/Aroghya there are no comparative merit which has been taken into consideration by respondent No.1.

5.3. The recommendation made by the subcommittee indicates that respondent No.2 has not even submitted its audited report and annual report for the purpose of such consideration. The application of respondent No.2 has been considered without any basis and allotment has been made for educational purposes even though the application has been made for Samudaya Bhavan/Shaishaknika/Aroghya.

5.4. Thus, it is respondent No.1 who has decided the activities which has to be carried out by Respondent No.2 even though the application submitted it was for three different aspects. He submits that there being no comparative evaluation of the applications by the subcommittee, the decision of the sub-committee is required to be quashed, the petition be allowed and the civic amenities be allotted to the petitioner.

6. Sri. G.Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that:

6.1. the notification indicated the aforesaid three categories and as such the respondent has made his application for all three categories. The respondent No.2 is willing to set up any of the three, that is to say, if the land is allotted to the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 is willing either to establish a Community Hall/Educational facility/Health Centre.

6.2. respondent No.2 has the capability and ability as also competence to establish any of the three a