LPA No.310 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 310of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 18.11.2011 Deepika Singh . Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. JP Rana , Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Anil Rahtee, Addl. AG Hy. Mr. Sidharath Batra, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR,J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 17.8.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner- appellant. The petitioner- appellant was allotted SCO No.2 in Sector 14 P, Pocket A, Hisar vide allotment letter dated 6.1.2004 on free hold basis by the respondent- HUDA. However, she deposited only 10% of the total amount of sale consideration and failed to deposit 15% of the total amount within a period of 30 days. The balance payment of 75% of the total amount was to be deposited in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of allotment or in eight half yearly equal instalments, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. After committing default an attempt was made to deposit 15% in July, 2004 but her request was rejected on 7.6.2005. Even her revision petition was dismissed by the Financial LPA No.310 of 2011 2 Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana vide order dated 27.6.2008 (P.5). The aforesaid order was challenged in the writ petition. It is appropriate to mention that while canceling the allotment, 10% of the amount of earnest money deposited by the petitioner-appellant has also been been forfeited. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and are of the opinion that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. The learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the plea of hostile discrimination on the ground that the order passed by the Revisional Authority in the case of Pawan Sardana and others stood on entirely different footing because the petitioner-appellant was not prevented on account of any act of omission and commission attributable to HUDA- respondent from depositing the amount. On the contrary, the petitioner- appellant has admitted that he could not deposit the amount without offering any valid explanation. We find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Rajiv Narain Raina) 18.11.2011 Judge okg