Civic amenity site allotments must consider all statutory criteria, not institutional seniority alone.

The petitioner trust and respondent No. 2 institution each applied to the Kalaburagi Urban Development Authority for a civic amenity site to establish a school.

The Authority rejected the petitioner’s application and allotted a site to respondent No. 2, relying on respondent No. 2’s earlier registration and its existing educational institution.

The petitioner challenged the Authority’s communication dated 11 February 2026, contending that earlier registration could not be the sole basis for the decision.

1. Whether the Authority could reject the petitioner’s application and allot the civic amenity site to respondent No. 2 solely on the basis of respondent No. 2’s earlier registration.

2. Whether the Authority was required to assess both applications against the selection principles in Rule 11 of the Karnataka Planning Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 2016.

Rules 8–12 of the Karnataka Planning Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 2016 govern registration, applications, eligibility, selection and the procedure where applicants have similar requirements.

Rule 11 requires the Authority to consider each institution on its merits, with special regard to the listed criteria, including its period of existence and registration, objectives and activities, financial position, public benefit, bona fides, present location and need for the site.

The Court relied on Grameena Abhiruddhi and Samuha v. The President, Hubli Dharwad Urban Development Authority and Others, which treated failure to consider the prescribed selection criteria under the earlier rules as a statutory violation.

The Authority’s decision relied on respondent No. 2’s earlier registration, a factor relevant under Rule 11(a), but did not demonstrate consideration of the other Rule 11 criteria or a comparative assessment of the rival applications.

Because the Rules require consideration of each institution’s merits against the prescribed principles, the Authority could not determine the applications solely by reference to seniority of registration.

The Court therefore directed reconsideration under the governing Rules.

No order was made as to costs.