IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5039 of 2004. Date of Decision: 26th May, 2009. Ramesh Kumar Petitioner through Mr. A.K.Jain, Advocate Versus HUDA & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Raminder Gadhoke, Advocate. 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 seeks quashing of the orders dated 2.1.2002 and 16.7.2003 [Annexures P-4 and P-9] respectively whereby allotment of Plot No. 115, Sector 47, Gurgaon has been cancelled and the petitioner's appeal against the said cancellation order has been dismissed in default due to non-appearance. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit defending the impugned action. The petitioner was allotted Plot No. 115, Sector 47, measuring 220 square meters, at Gurgaon vide allotment letter dated 1.3.2001. He was required to deposit 15% of the allotment price within 30 days. The petitioner, however, is stated to have gone abroad [Canada] in March, 2001 to meet his sons who are settled there. He, therefore, did not receive the allotment letter dated 1.3.2001. The petitioner's case is that while he was abroad, he came to know about the Paralytic attack suffered by his mother, who was staying at Amritsar. The petitioner, after returning to India in July, 2001, went straight to Amritsar and continued to stay with his mother till November, 2001. On this premise, it is his case that he came to know about being successful in the Draw of Lots in November, 2001 only. The petitioner immediately got prepared a Demand Draft representing 15% of the allotment price with interest and volunteered to deposit the same. Instead of receiving the said Demand Draft, the impugned order dated 2.1.2002 was passed whereby allotment of the plot was cancelled on the ground of the petitioner's failure to deposit 15% of the allotment price within the prescribed period. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. He thereafter approached the State Government, namely, the Revisional Authority, who vide its order dated 25.5.2003 accepted the petitioner's revision and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remanded the case for afresh decision. It appears that the petitioner was required to appear before the Appellate Authority on 26.6.2003 and an intimation to that effect was statedly sent to him. The petitioner having failed to appear, the appeal was dismissed in default vide the impugned order dated 16.7.2003 [Annexure P-9]. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner's grievance is that he had appeared before the Appellate Authority on 9.6.2003 and no next date of hearing was fixed on that date. Having heard learned counsel for the parties for some time, I am of the considered view that the Appellate Authority ought to have decided the petitioner's appeal on merits. Even if the petitioner had failed to appear, nothing precluded the Appellate Authority to go through the Grounds of Appeal and pass a speaking order. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.7.2003 [Annexure P-9] is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh and in accordance with law. Suffice it to say that the petitioner shall be entitled to produce the evidence/material in support of his contention that at the time when the allotment letter was sent to him, he had gone abroad and/or was in Amritsar to look after his ailing mother. The said material shall be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in order to find out as to whether or not the petitioner failed to deposit 15% of the allotment price on time for bona-fide reasons. If the Appellate Authority comes to the conclusion that the petitioner could not deposit the requisite amount for the reasons beyond his control, he shall be granted one more opportunity to deposit the said amount along with interest/penal interest, as per the Rules. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this received by him. Meanwhile, no third party rights shall be created in respect of the subject plot. Disposed of. Dasti. May 26, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE