IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21 of 2007 Date of decision: 8th December, 2009 Dr. Vijay Bhushan Kapoor … Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. C.B. Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sachin Kapoor, Advocate for Mr. Sikandar Bakshi, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.3. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Respondent Haryana Urban Development Authority issued an advertisement offering free-hold residential plots at various places in the State of Haryana in general category. The earnest amount, i.e. 10 percent of the total tentative cost was Rs.1,79,400/-. Case of the petitioner is that vide Annexure P-1, Canara Bank had prepared a draft of Rs.1,79,400/- and receipt (Annexure P-2) was also issued. However, application form was returned on the alleged ground that the draft received by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula was of Rs.1,76,400/-. This being the deficient amount, application form of the petitioner was not accepted. Counsel for the petitioner submits that matter of fact is that draft was issued for Rs.1,79,400/-, however, on the form, due to inadvertence, the amount of the draft reflected was Rs.1,76,400/-. Union Bank had forwarded the amount of Rs.1,76,400/- to HUDA. Civil Writ Petition No.21 of 2007 In response, the Union Bank, an agent of HUDA, has stated that since the petitioner had filled the amount of Rs.1,76,400/- in the application form, therefore, the amount of Rs.1,76,400/- was remitted to HUDA as the list was prepared by the Bank from the application forms and the list was not prepared after taking the demand drafts into consideration. Mr. Sachin Kapoor, appearing for HUDA has produced the original application form submitted by the petitioner. A perusal of the same reveals that the petitioner had filled the amount of Rs.1,76,400/-, therefore, there is a justification in the stand taken by the Union Bank, the agent of HUDA that they had prepared the list from the application forms and not from the demand drafts received. Even otherwise, the petitioner was to be considered in the draw of lots, where thousands of people had applied. There was no sure chance of success in the draw of lots. Therefore, petitioner cannot take benefit of his own mistake. There is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that liberty be granted to the petitioner to seek damages from the Bank by approaching the appropriate forum. Petitioner may do so, by availing the remedy, available to him in accordance with provisions of law. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 8, 2009 rps 2