IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7098 of 2007 Date of decision: May 15, 2009. Sumit Narula ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Madan Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Shri Y.S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent(s) No.2 & 3. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 29.4.2004, 7.3.2006 and 20.10.2006 (Annexures P-2, P-4 and P-6) passed by the respondents whereby allotment of residential plot No.1727, Sector 4, HUDA, Rewari in his favour has been cancelled and the petitioner's appeal/revision petition against the said order have also been dismissed. The subject plot was allotted to the petitioner in a draw of lots on 1.12.2003. As per the terms and conditions of allotment, he was required to deposit 15% of the allotment price within 30 days, i.e., on or before 1.1.2004. The petitioner admittedly did not deposit the said amount. Consequently, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rewari had no choice but to cancel the allotment. The petitioner's appeal and revision petitions have also met the same fate. The petitioner has now come up with the plea that his mother was suffering from serious ailment and was bed-ridden due to which he could not deposit the amount. It is not in dispute that the HUDA has framed a policy in terms whereof, the delay in deposit of 15% amount can be condoned to a limited extent by the Administrator and the Chief Administrator, HUDA, respectively. However, if the delay is of more than 90 days, it can be condoned by the Chairman, HUDA only. The petitioner has not applied for the condonation of delay so far nor has shown any cause which was beyond his control and prevented him from depositing the 15% amount in time. In these circumstances, notwithstanding the impugned orders passed by the Estate Officer, appellate or the revisional authorities, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may, if so advised, apply to the competent authority within a period of one month for the condonation of delay along with the supporting material, if any. In case the petitioner moves such an application, the competent authority shall consider his request in accordance with law/policy. Needless to say that in case the petitioner makes out a case for condonation of delay, the competent authority shall pass an appropriate order. However, if the petitioner's plea does not find favour with the competent authority, the action already taken shall attain finality. Till the petitioner moves an application for condonation of delay within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the respondents are directed not to allot the subject plot to anyone. Dasti. May 15, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge