Mandatory procedure in allotment rules vitiates administrative action when due publicity and competing claims are not properly considered.

Additional grounds were permitted in review because the omitted matters went to the root of the impugned order and disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record. The allotment was then found unsustainable because the mandatory requirements of due publicity and consideration of competing claims under the allotment rules were not shown to have been followed. Applying the principle that when a statute or rule prescribes a manner for doing an act it must be done in that manner or not at all, the court held that breach of the prescribed procedure vitiated the administrative action and affected the approved resolution. The review was allowed, the earlier order was recalled, and the allotment orders were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether additional grounds could be urged in the review petition under the provisions governing review; (ii) Whether non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of due publicity and consideration of competing claims under the allotment rules vitiated the impugned allotment order.

Issue (i): Whether additional grounds could be urged in the review petition under the provisions governing review.

Analysis: The review jurisdiction was examined in the light of the limited grounds available under the Code of Civil Procedure. The omitted grounds were treated as material because they went to the root of the validity of the impugned order and disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record. The application to urge additional grounds was therefore allowed.

Conclusion: Yes. The additional grounds were permitted to be urged in review.

Issue (ii): Whether non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of due publicity and consideration of competing claims under the allotment rules vitiated the impugned allotment order.

Analysis: The allotment rules required due publicity for civic amenity sites and a proper examination of the applications in accordance with the guiding principles prescribed for allotment. No material was produced to show compliance with those mandatory requirements. The authority had proceeded to recommend allotment without following the prescribed procedure, and the settled principle applied that where a statute prescribes a manner for doing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all. This non-compliance rendered the allotment legally unsustainable and also affected the approved resolution.

Conclusion: Yes. The impugned allotment order was vitiated by breach of the mandatory rules.

Final Conclusion: The review was allowed, the earlier order was recalled, and the allotment orders were quashed for failure to comply with mandatory statutory procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute or rule prescribes a mandatory procedure for doing an act, the act must be performed strictly in that manner; failure to comply with such mandatory procedural requirements vitiates the resulting administrative action and constitutes a valid ground for review where it produces an error apparent on the face of the record.

---