The court held that the methodology adopted by the MUDA for determining seniority, which did not consider earlier applications for different measurements, was improper and not supported by the applicable rules.

ORDER :

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

a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other Writ or direction to quash the final list published by the respondent on 11.08.2017 in respect of allotment of sites in R.T.Nagar, Mysore in No.1/2011-12 dated 19.09.2011 (Annexure-K) as illegal, unjust, ultra vires, arbitrary, capricious and violation of principles of natural justice.

b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction to the respondent to allot a site to the petitioner in R.T.Nagar layout only by considering the number of attempts and his seniority in age for the category of site sought for, in the interest of justice and equity.

c) Pass such other orders which this Honourable High Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner claims to be a Central Government employee who was then working with the Canara Bank having been born in Mandya wanted to live in the City of Mysuru after retirement.

3. In that background, the petitioner had from time to time submitted his applications for allotment of a site whenever called for by City Improvement Trust Board, Mysuru (CITB, Mysuru) or the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA). It is contended that the petitioner has made the following attempts.

4. Thus, in spite of 9 attempts having been made in between 1985 to 2011, the petitioner has not been allotted a site. Due to such non-allotment, the petitioner had approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysuru in CD No.20/2005 when on 29.06.2005 the Consumer Forum directed payment of interest on the deposited amounts for 126 months which was taken up in appeal by MUDA before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Appeal No.1209/2005, the appeal came to be dismissed on 17.10.2005 again directing payment of interest.

5. On an Execution Petition having been filed, the MUDA handed over a cheque dated 19.12.2007 for a sum of Rs.12,213/-being the interest and also submitted to the Court the seniority list contending that the petitioner’s seniority can only be taken into consideration for site measuring 50 x 80 and thus, there have been 5 attempts made and not 8 attempts as sought to be contended by the petitioner. Accepting the same, the Execution Petition came to be closed on 26.12.2007.

6. On another notification having been published on 19.09.2011, the petitioner submitted his application once again for 50 x 80 plot. However, no allotment was made to the petitioner even this time. When the petitioner made enquiries, since no response having been received, the petitioner applied under Right to Information Act seeking for reasons as to why allotment was not made in his favou