JUDGMENT 1. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction to the respondent Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur to provide an alternative commercial plot of the measurement 13.95 sq. meters in Amba Bari C-Block Scheme to the petitioner in place of M-54, which had been sold to him in the auction sale held on 21st May, 1980. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the decision taken by the Jaipur Development authority on 30th October, 1986, by which the petitioner was deprived from getting an alternative commercial plot. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur auctioned, under the Amba Bari Commercial Scheme, 31 commercial plots for shops on 21st May, 1980. The petitioner was one of the bidders and the shop bearing No. M/54 measuring 13.95 sq. meters was purchased by her at the rate of Rs. 600/-per square meter. The auction sale of the said plot No. M/54 was confirmed by the Urban Improvement Trust on 21st October, 1980. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 2,100/-when the bid was knocked down in her favour and after the confirmation of the auction sale. The petitioner was in- formed about the confirmation of the auction of the plot vide letter dated 21st November, 1980 and was asked to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 6,321/- and, in pursuance of the said communication, the petitioner deposited the amount in time. The Urban Improvement Trust vide its communication No. 26465 dated 2 23rd September, 1981 intimated the petitioner to obtain possession of the aforesaid shop No.M/54. The communication was accompanied by a site-plan. It so happened that on account of unprecedented heavy rains in Jaipur in the year 1981, all the plots including Plot No. M/-54. which were auctioned by the Urban Improvement Trust on 21st May, 1980, washed away, with the consequence that pone of the auction-purchasers could get possession of their respective plots on 3rd October, 1981, the petitioner made a representation that in place of Plot No. M/54, she may be given alternative commercial plot. The Jaipur Development Authority took a policy decision and the same was intimated to all the auction- purchasers including the petitioner, that it was not possible to allot alternative commercial plots. The Jaipur Development Authority took a policy decision and the same was intimated to all the auction- purchasers including the petitioner, that it was not possible to allot alternative commercial plots. Even after the aforesaid communication, the petitioner again claimed to get an alternative plot vide her letter dated 7th August, 1984. The Jaipur Development Authority again reiterated its decision and sanctioned the refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon withdrew the amount of Rs. 8, 412/-. 3. The case of the petitioner further is that subsequently on 3rd October, 1986, the Jaipur Development Authority again took a policy decision to the effect that those persons who were alloyed plots in auction in Amba Bari Commercial Scheme to give (sic) alternative shop plots in Amba Bari C-Block Scheme of the same size by drawing lottery for the shops and those persons who withdrew their amount would not be allotted any such plot. The grievance of the petitioner is that this policy decision was not communicated to her and that she is also entitled to get the shop plots in Amba Btri C-Scheme together with other auction purchasers. The petitioner further submits that on 24th June, 1987, she came to know that seven commercial plots in Amba Bari 'scheme C-block were going to be auctioned on 27th June, 1987 On getting that information she went to the Jaipur Development Authority's office to inquire about the position. There she came to know of the policy decision which JDA had taken on 30th October, 1986 She also came to know that out of 31 auction purchasers only 24 persons would be provided commercial plots and seven persons would not get the alternative shop plots. In view of the aforesaid policy decision these seven plots were to be auctioned on 24th June, 1987, though, they were car-marked for allotment to the remaining auction purchasers, including the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has submitted that out of 31 auction purchasers 24 persons have been provided alternative commercial plots in Amba Bari C-block scheme, but the petitioner and other persons are not being provided alternative shop plots and, thus, it s clear case of discrimination between 24 auction-purchasers who had been provided alternative commercial plots and the petitioner and the six other persons who have been deprived of the same though they are similarly placed. The contention of the petitioner is that all 31 auction purchasers who were allotted plots in Amba Bari Commercial Scheme and whose plots were washed away in the flood, they stand on the same footing. 5. In the reply submitted by the respondent, Jaipur Development Authority, it is contended that no discrimination has been done to the petitioner. The petitioner and six other persons had withdrawn their amount and the plots were allotted to those persons whose deposits were still lying with the respondent and thus they cannot be equated with the persons who have got the refund of their deposits. 6. Shri N. L. Tibrewal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of plot in Amba Bari C-block Scheme in the same manner in which the plots in the said scheme have been allotted 24 to other auction-purchasers. He has further submitted that the contention of the Jaipur Development Authority that in auction purchasers whose deposits were lying with the Jaipur Development Authority when the decision was taken by the Jaipur Development Authority on 30th October, 1986, which provided allotment t f alternative shop plots in Amba Bari C-block scheme and those who had withdrawn their deposits stands on a different footing, is not tenable. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had withdrawn the amount on account of the fact that the policy decision was taken by the Jaipur Development Authority on 11th July, 1984. It was only which the decision was taken by the Jaipur Development Authority that the petitioner had withdrawn the amount lying deposited with the Jaipur Development Authority since 1980. 7. Shri R.R.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, Jaipur Development Authority, however, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the allotment of plot in Amba Bari C-block as she had no subsisting right after the withdrawal of her deposit. He further contended that it is not the case of discrimination. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, In our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of plot in the same and similar manner in which the plots were allotted to 24 persons whose deposits were lying with the Jaipur Development Authority when it took the decision on 30th October, 1986. The Jaipur Development Authority by the subsequent decision taken on 30th Oct., 1986 allotted the plot to the allottees in whose favour the auction in Amba Bari Commercial Scheme had taken place. In fact, the respondent, Jaipur Development Authority, considered the case of the auction-purchasers and rightly took a decision to allot alternative plots to them as on account of vis major their plots were washed away in the unprecedented rains in Jaipur in the year (981. 9. We have examined the entire case and we are of the view that the petitioner applied for the refund of the amount only when a policy decision was taken by the Jaipur Development Authority on or about 11th July, 1984. Prior to that the petitioner was making representations for allotment alternative plot Even after the decision was taken by the Jaipur Development Authority on 11th July, 1984, the petitioner vide her letter dated "9th August, 1984 represented for allotment of the plot. It was only which the Jaipur Development, Authority sanctioned for the withdrawal of the amount that she had withdrawn the amount. In fact, the petitioner obeyed the orders of the Jaipur Development Authority and as per the decision taken by it, she withdrew the amount. But the other persons, i.e, the remaining 24 persons did not withdraw the amount and later on for one reason or the other, the Jaipur Development Authority favoured them by allotting plots to them and denied the same treatment to the petitioner i.e. Unwier in the, circumstances, we are of the view that all the allottees, i.e. all the auction purchasers who participated in the auction on 21st May, 1980, should be treated equally, and non- allotment to the petitioner by the Jaipur Development Authority amounts to denial of her right to equality and amounts to discrimination. 10. In the premises aforesaid, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondent, Jaipur Development Authority, to provide an alternative commercial plot of measurement of 13.95 sq. Meter in Amba Bari, C-block Scheme to the petitioner in place of her plot No. M/54, out of the plots auctioned by it on 27th June, 1987 or to allot a similar plot of the same size in Amba Bari, C-block Scheme. Meter in Amba Bari, C-block Scheme to the petitioner in place of her plot No. M/54, out of the plots auctioned by it on 27th June, 1987 or to allot a similar plot of the same size in Amba Bari, C-block Scheme. The plot may be allotted on the same terms and conditions on which similar plots were allotted to the other auction-purchasers who participated in the auction on 21st May, 1980. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******