C.W.P No.11621 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.W.P No.11621 of 2008 Date of Decision: 09.07.2008 Gian Singh ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab etc. ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jora Singh. Present: Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioner. ... J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral). Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 30.5.2008 (Annexure P16). In order to understand and appreciate the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the operative part of the aforesaid order is being extracted hereunder: -- “The government vide its letter No.2225 dated 19.3.2008 has written to this office that those applicants who have applied for allotment of plot earlier, they can also get their name included in the draw after making payment of the difference of the amount of the present reserved price. Therefore if you want to include your name in the draw then you may deposit Rs.50,000/- the difference of earnest money in this office C.W.P No.11621 of 2008 2 within 15 days so that your name may be included in the draw. In case of non-deposit of difference of amount, your name will not be included in the draw.” It is apparent from the impugned order, that the applicant had not applied for the plot for which he presently desires consideration. It is also apparent from the impugned order, that there is a difference in the reserved price in respect of the plot applied for by the petitioner earlier, and for which he desires to be considered now. As per the impugned order, the petitioner has been informed, that if he desires to have his name included in the draw of lots for the plot for which he is applying now (for the first time), he should deposit the difference in the earnest money within 15 days. We find no infirmity in the aforesaid determination. So as to become eligible, an applicant must deposit earnest money in terms of the reserved price fixed for the plot for which he is an applicant. He cannot require the authorities to consider his application on the basis of the earnest money deposited by him for some other plot. It is, therefore, that we find no merit in the claim of the petitioner requiring the respondents to accept the earnest money deposited by him on an earlier occasion in respect of a different plot. In order to be fair to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be pertinent to refer to the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in Miss Swarna Khanna Vs. Delhi Development Authority, 2001 (3) RCR (Civil) 19, wherein it was held, that on account of delay in making allotment, the allottees cannot be subjected to additional charges on account of escalation of prices in the meantime. In our view, the instant judgement would be applicable to a case wherein the application is for the same plot C.W.P No.11621 of 2008 3 and the prices had risen in the interregnum on account of delay in allotment. That is not the case herein. So far as the present controversy is concerned, the application of the petitioner is in respect of a plot different from the one for which he had deposited the earnest money. To be considered for the present plot, the applicant will obviously have to pay the price prevalent at the time when the application has been filed, and not on the basis of the price prevalent when he had deposited the earnest money for some other plot. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge. ( Jora Singh ) Judge. 09.07.2008 sk.