JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - This petition is directed against an order passed by the Housing Commissioner. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad cancelling the allotment of on M.I.G. house No. C 307/12 made in favour of the petitioner as well as directing forfeiture of the initial deposit made by him towards the registration of his application. 2. Under a housing scheme floated by the aforesaid Parishad, the petitioner made an application for allotment of an M.I.G. flat and deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards the registration of his application. The application of the petitioner was registered and numbered ALD/M-202(6). The figure of 6 within backers indicates the round in which the petitioners application was to be considered. Subsequently, in November 1983 in response to a notice issued by the Board to all the registered persons for submitting their applications for being included in the draw of lots for allotment of flats under the aforesaid scheme fixed for 11-11-1983, the petitioner made a written application on 2-11-1983. However, in his application he wrongly mentioned his registration number as ALD/M-202(5) instead of the ALD/M-202(6). As a result of this error, the petitioners application was considered in the draw of lots held on 11-11-1983 for the fifth round when admittedly according to the registration number allotted to him, his application could be considered only in the sixth round of the draw of lots. 3. This mistake led to allotment of a house No. C 307/12. At the time of verification, this slip was detected by the Board whereupon the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the Housing Commissioner by his order dated 23-3-1984 on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to participate in the draw of lots reserved for those registered for the fifth round. By his subsequent order communicated to the petitioner through a letter dated 18-12-1984 issued by the Assistant Housing Commissioner petitioner was informed that in exercise of its power under Regulation 45(6) framed by the Board the Chairman has while cancelling the allotment order also directed the forfeiture of the initial deposit made by the petitioner. 4. By his subsequent order communicated to the petitioner through a letter dated 18-12-1984 issued by the Assistant Housing Commissioner petitioner was informed that in exercise of its power under Regulation 45(6) framed by the Board the Chairman has while cancelling the allotment order also directed the forfeiture of the initial deposit made by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner challenges the aforesaid action on the ground that in the first place the petitioners allotment should not have been cancelled as the mistake pointed out by the Board in the petitioners application dated 2-11-1983 was result of a mere typographical error and secondly, even if legally the petitioners application could not be considered in the draw of lots reserved for those registered for fifth round, his registration should not have been cancelled. Instead he should have been considered for allotment at the draw of lots for the sixth round to which he (petitioner) undisputed belong. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the draw of lots for the sixth round is already over, the petitioner was, in any case, entitled to be considered in the subsequent draw of lots which may be next due. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits exchanged between them, we are clearly of the opinion that while the cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner of house No. C 307/12 was justified, the further action directing forfeiture of the initial deposit made by the petitioner which virtually amounts to cancellation of his registration itself was clearly unfair and arbitrary. 6. The allotment of these flats is controlled by the Regulations framed by the U.P. Housing and Development Board under Section 95 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam. The relevant Regulations have been annexed to the counter-affidavit. Accordingly to these Regulations the allotment of flats was to be made by draw of lots. Clause 5 of Regulation 30 provides that those whose applications were registered earlier were entitled to priority over those whose application came subsequently. It says by way of illustration that the applicants of the first round shall have priority over those of the second round and so on and so forth. In short, the allotment has to be made on what has been described in the counter-affidavit as the principle of seniority. 7. It says by way of illustration that the applicants of the first round shall have priority over those of the second round and so on and so forth. In short, the allotment has to be made on what has been described in the counter-affidavit as the principle of seniority. 7. Thus according to the Regulations, the petitioner who was registered for the sixth round could not legally claim the right to participate in the draw of lots reserved for the fifth round. The Housing Commissioner was, therefore, clearly right in cancelling the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner. It was the direct result of the fact that the petitioner had wrongly mentioned his registration No. ALD/M-202(5). He has, therefore, no claim over the house No. C 307/12 allotted to him. 8. That, however, did not justify the further action of the respondents in cancelling the very registration of the petitioner and directing the forfeiture of the initial deposit made by him. In the petition, it has been categorically asserted that the mistake in the petitioners application dated 2-11-1983 was the consequence of a pure typographical error. No material has been pointed out in the counter-affidavit which might justify the conclusion that the mistake in the petitioner's application was deliberate or intentional designed to defraud the respondents or to gain a wrongful advantage. After going through the affidavits exchanged between the parties, we have not the slightest doubt that the error was not deliberate or intentional but may be the result of a typographical error. That being so, the petitioners application should have been considered in the sixth round of the draw of lots, and, if that was not possible because the sixth round was already over when the error was detected by the respondents, then, in all fairness, in the next round or rounds for allotment of M.I.G. houses. This flows from the duty enjoined on the Board as an instrumentality of the State to act fairly in the performance of its duties. 9. It is true that under Regulation 30(6), a discretion is vested in the Housing Commissioner to cancel an allotment if it is discovered that the information given by an applicant for allotment was false or that he was guilty of suppression of material facts. That, however, is undoubtedly not the case here. 9. It is true that under Regulation 30(6), a discretion is vested in the Housing Commissioner to cancel an allotment if it is discovered that the information given by an applicant for allotment was false or that he was guilty of suppression of material facts. That, however, is undoubtedly not the case here. The petitioner was guilty neither of having fed any false information nor suppressed any material fact. A distinction must, we think, be drawn between an honest mistake and a false statement deliberately made to deceive the authority. 10. We, therefore, hold that while the cancellation of the allotment of M.I.G. house No. C 307/12 made in favour of the petitioner was legal and proper, the further action of cancelling the registration of the petitioner and directing the forfeiture of the initial deposit was entirely unjustified being unjust and arbitrary and therefore, liable to be quashed. 11. In the result, the petition succeeds in part and is allowed. The order communicated to the petitioner by the Assistant Housing Commissioner through letter dated 18-12-1984 (Annexure-5) directing the forfeiture of the petitioners initial deposit is quashed. The registration of the petitioner's application shall stand restored. The petitioners claim for allotment shall be considered by the respondent No. 1 in the next round of draw of lots which may be due hereafter, in case the sixth round of draw of lots is already over. The decision of the respondents cancelling the allotment of a house No. C 307/12 made in favour of the petitioner, is, however, affirmed. 12. A Copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of requisite charges within a week.