IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 2693 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 14th February, 2011. Amit Kumar Petitioner through Mr. S.S.Salar, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner was the successful bidder for Booth No. 31-F in the auction held on 04.11.2000 but he failed to deposit 25% of the auction amount as per the terms and conditions. The petitioner applied for extension of the time but his request was never accepted. After about nine years, the petitioner gave another representation which the State Government appears to have been forwarded to the Improvement Trust on 05.09.2009 for comments. The booth in question meanwhile was put to fresh auction and has been allotted to the highest bidder, namely, respondent No.3. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned auction. In GMADA v Manju Jain & Ors., 2010[4] RCR [Civil], 224, Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that:- “Mere draw of lots/allocation letter does not confer any right to allotment. The system of draw of lots is being resorted to with a view to identify the prospective allottee. It is only a mode, a method, a process to identify the allottee i.e. The process of selection. It is not an allotment by itself. Mere identification or selection of the allottee does not clothe the person selected with a legal right to allotment. [See Delhi Development Authority v Pushpendra Kumar Jain, AIR 1995 SC, 1]. 27. If the instant case is examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions, it becomes clear that respondent No. 1 did not make any response whatsoever after applying for allotment. No explanation could be furnished by respondent No. 1 for why she kept quiet for 4½ years after receiving the allocation letter and why she did not make any attempt to find out what had happened to her application. Respondent No. 1 did not send her acceptance of the allotment; did not deposit the amount which became due in 1999 itself; and did not execute the required hire-purchase agreement with the appellant- authority. Thus, it is solely for her that no concluded contract came into existence between the parties. In such a fact-situation, the respondent No. 1 could not be handed over possession of the flat. The forfeiture of the earnest money is in terms of the statutory provisions [Emphasis applied]”. In the instant case also, the petitioner allowed the grass to grow under his feet and has now approached the Court after the Booth in question already stood auctioned in favour of respondent No. 3. No case to interfere with the impugned action is made out. Dismissed. Dasti. February 14, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE