CWP No. 14875 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14875 of 1989 Date of decision March 18, 2011 Smt. Lalita Singhal ....... Petitioner Versus The Chandigarh Housing Board ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. K. L. Suneja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K. K. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. Through the writ petition the petitioner seeks for allotment of the house under the General Public Housing Scheme of 1977. It is an admitted case that the petitioner has paid the application money of `1000/- on 8.5.1980. However, the petitioner was not allotted the house, although his name was taken in by draw of lots. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have been deliberately attempting to return the money and not extending the benefit of the scheme through allotment. 2. The response in reply is that the last date for submission of application and for payment was 15.1.1978 and the payment made in the year 1980 did not secure to him a right of consideration for CWP No. 14875 of 1989 2 allotment. The respondent admits in the reply that the amount paid by the petitioner beyond the due date ought not to have been received at all but it was wrongly done by a Clerk in the office. It is contended that an offer of refund of money was made but the petitioner had not received the same. The letters of communication from the respondent for refund of the money are produced by the petitioner himself through Annexures P-4 to P-6 and P-8. Petitioner has refused to receive the same and has filed the writ petition after issuance of notice. 3. The petitioner who has not made the application within the last date for filing of an application cannot have a right of allotment. Mere receipt of money by a staff of the respondent cannot give to the petitioner a vested right for consideration for allotment. Even the writ petition filed in the year 1989 for failure of the respondent to allot the house in the scheme of the year 1977 is barred by laches. There is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. The respondent shall refund the money of `1000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of receipt till the date of payment. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 18, 2011 archana