WPMS No. 1504 of 2009 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Ms. Indu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.S. Bhandari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the respondents. MCC No. 70 of 2015 CLMA No. 990 of 2015 CLMA No. 991 of 2015 CLMA No. 992 of 2015 Petitioner No. 1 expired on 26.05.2010. It is stated that before her death, petitioner no. 1 executed one Will on 20.01.2010 in favour of her son-in-law Raj Kumar Sharma. Therefore, Raj Kumar Sharm is legal heir of the deceased petition no. 1. Mr. M.S. Bhandari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the respondents has no serious objection if delay in moving the substitution application, substitution application as well as setting aside abatement application and Restoration application are allowed. Therefore, all applications stand allowed. Let necessary amendment in the memo of parties be carried out during the course of day. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing. Undisputed, facts of the present case are that a commercial plot no. A/Com-2 was auctioned along with other plots; petitioner was the highest bidder, therefore, his bid was accepted vide order dated 05.11.2007; petitioner no. 1 was asked, vide letter dated 13.11.2007 to deposit Rs. 25,20,600/- on or before 15.01.2008 as well as other miscellaneous charges of Rs. 7352/- as mentioned in the letter dated 13.11.2007; it is specifically mentioned in the letter dated 13.11.2007 that time to deposit money shall not be extended; petitioner did not deposit the amount as asked vide letter dated 13.11.2007, therefore, respondent issued impugned letter dated 08.07.2009 cancelling the allotment and forfeiting the amount of token money of Rs. 2,40,000/-; thereafter, advertisement was issued for re-auction of the plot. Feeling aggrieved, present petition has been filed. Since, vide letter dated 13.11.2007, petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 25,20,600/- on or before 15.01.2008 and petitioner did not deposit the amount till 08.07.2009, therefore, respondent Housing Board seems to be correct and well within its jurisdiction in cancelling the allotment and forfeiting the token money deposited by the petitioner. Consequently, no interference is called for. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (Alok Singh, J.) 22.01.2015 Deepak/JM-