JUDGMENT Roy, J.: This is an appeal, against the judgment and order dated 27. 8. 87, passed in C. R. No. 624(W) of 1984, by a learned Single Judge of this Court and whereby, the Rule was made absolute and appropriate declarations, which will be referred to hereinafter, were issued. 2. The Writ petitioner respondent, who at the rime of obtaining the Rule under Article 226, against an order dated 5th April, 1983, refusing to revive an order of allotment of a plot of land at Salt Lake City, which was said to have been made in his favour or alternatively asked for cancellation of the said offer for non-payment of selami duty, was holding the post of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax; Calcutta. It was his claim that the offer in question was made to him by an order dated 7.4.79, being Annexure C to the Writ petition. Admittedly, he applied for allotment of a land at Salt Lake City stating that he had been posted in West Bengal since 1964 and had no residential accommodation or any landed property any where in India. It was his further case that emotionally and culturally, he decided to settle down permanently in Calcutta. 3. On such application, on 23rd March, 1979, by the letter in Annexure A to the Writ petition, a, provisional allotment was made in his favour. He was informed that such provisional allotment of one four-cottahs plot on lease for 999 years, bas been made in his favour, if he was agreeable to accept the offer and if be was agreeable to accept such offer, he was requested to furnish the following particulars: "(i) *** (ii) if your wife/husband is employed or has (iii) any other earning such income with necessary documentary evidence in support of the statement. (iii) *** (iv) *** (v) An affidavit duly sworn before a First Class Magistrate declaring (i) total area and description of vacant land held by you or your family in any Urban Land agglomeration as defined in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1979, (ii) that if 4 cottahs of Land is allotted to you, will not be hit by the provision of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1979 (iii) that you and/or your wife/husband or your family do not solely own any house or plot of land within the Calcutta Metropolitan Development area and (iv) the address, location size and description of the house/land if you and/or your wife/husband or your family solely own any house or plot of land within the Calcutta Metropolitan Development area. (vi) *** ***" In reply, the Writ petitioner respondent, on the 3rd April, 1979 expressed his willingness to accept the offer and declared that his wife has neither employed any where nor bad she any other earning. Apart from the above, an affidavit to the following effect was filed. "1. That neither I nor my wife nor my unmarried minor children jointly or severally hold any immovable property in excess of the ceiling limit within "Urban Agglomeration" as defined in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 2. That by acquiring a plot of land measuring about 4 (four) cottahs in sector 11 of the Northern Salt Lake City Extension Area in the district of 24 Parganas on lease bold from the Governor of the State of West Bengal, I shall not be hit by the provisions of the Central Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Ace. 1976 and shall not be liable to submit any return under the Act. 3. That I do not hold lands buildings situated within the said “Urban Agglomeration” and in C. M. D. A. 4. That my family as defined in the aforesaid Act doesn’t hold lands buildings situated within the said “Urban Agglomeration” and C. M. D. A.” Thereafter on 7th April, 1979, by the record in Annexure C to the With petition the Writ petitioner respondent was given the letter of allotment which has been mentioned as letter of offer of allotment and which indicated certain conditions, required to be fulfilled. Clause (a) of those conditions dealt with the extra price to be paid for locational advantages and the rates relevant for such advantages. Clause (b) stated that as the plots were not identical in size it was not possible to stated at that stage the exact price which was payable by the Writ petitioner respondent and the same would be calculated after the selection of the plot and accordingly, he was given option to deposit selami in one of the two ways, as mentioned blow: “(b) (i) Payment of Rs. (8,000 X 4)=32,000/- in one instalment within ninety days form the date of this letter. If you made this payment, you would be requested to select a plot. After selection of the plot, balance amount which is payable by you will, be calculated. You will, however, be required to give a balance selami over and above Rs. 32,000/- provided the plot has you select is over four cottahs and/or the plot has locational advantages as stated in para 1(a) above. After calculation of the balance selami, a demand notice will issue and you may pay this balance selami within ninety days from the date of demand notice without any interest. If you, however, do not make payment of this amount within ninety days as stated above. Interest at the rate of 7% per cent for the first two years and at the rate of 10% per cent for the third year will be charged. This interest will accrue from 91st day from the date of issue of demand notice. (ii) Payment of Rs. 16,000/- within ninety days from the date of issue of allotment order and balance selami within 3 (three) years from the date of issue of allotment order, you will, however, have to pay interest at the rate of 7 per cent for the first two years and interest at the rate of 10 per cent for the third year. Interest will accrue from the 91st day from the date of issue of allotment order. (iii) If you do not make payment of a least Rs. Interest will accrue from the 91st day from the date of issue of allotment order. (iii) If you do not make payment of a least Rs. 16,000/- within ninety days from the date of issue of allotment order your allotment will stand cancelled without intimation to you.” Clause (d) and clause (h) which will also be relevant for the purpose of deciding these appeals are also quoted below: “(d) The selami or part thereof as aforesaid should be deposited with the Reserve Bank of India, Calcutta (or in the manner as may be decided) by a Challan in T. R. Form No. 7 under Head 483-Capital outlay on Housing B-Other Housing Scheme-Salt Lake Reclamation Schemes. The receipted challan will have to be deposited with the Executive Engineer, Design Division, Salt Lake, Sech Bhavan, Calcutta-64 who will accept the receipted challan and proper receipt on and from the forenoon of 5.1.79. The challans for deposit of money need not be endorsed by any officer of this deptt. but deposit of money under wrong head by parties will not be recognised an accepted will rectification is done. (h) No assurance of completion of development work by any specified date or the manner or such development will be given.” Apart from the above terms clause (i) contained that physical possession of the plot will not be handed over before the premium or selami has been paid in full and the lease deed executed and registered. Clause (k) of the said document indicated that after full payment of all the dues the Writ petitioner respondent will have to get the lease agreement drawn up, executed and registered and all expenditure there of will have to be borne by him. Reference to another clause being clause (p) on the basis of the submissions as made before us will have to be made and the said clause (p) is as follows: “(p) A specimen copy of the Challan in T. R. Form No. 7 duly filled in except the column regarding the amount of money to be deposited is enclosed. Before depositing money the amouny of money i.e., either 50% or the full amount of the tentative selami may please be specified in the appropriate column.” 4. There is no doubt that on receipt of such letter of offer of allotment, which was claimed by Mr. Before depositing money the amouny of money i.e., either 50% or the full amount of the tentative selami may please be specified in the appropriate column.” 4. There is no doubt that on receipt of such letter of offer of allotment, which was claimed by Mr. M. K. Chakraborty to be not the allotment order and which submission was disputed by Mrs. Gupta, the Writ petitioner Respondent on 26.4.79 by the letter in Annexure D, exercised his option for depositing selami in terms of clause (b) (ii) as referred to hereinbefore and it is stated that he was agreeable to pay Rs. 16,000/- within 90 days from the date of issue of the allotment order and the balance selami within three years from the date of issue of allotment together with interest at the rate of allotment as described. 5. After about three years and more particularly on 12th November, 1982 the Writ petitioner respondent made a representative to the Government which was followed by his second representative on 20.11.82 and third one on 2nd March, 1983, asking not only for some clarification, but also for revival of his order of allotment. He has given some reasons for which he had to wait for these three years and Mr. Chakraborty severely criticised the action of the authorities concerned, in not answering the Writ petitioner respondent’s queries on certain points. However, it appears that on the 5th of April, 1983, by the on record in Annexure H the Writ petitioner respondent was informed of the inability of the authorities concerned to revive the offer of allotment of a plot at Salt Lake, which was made in his favour on 7.4.79, since such offer stood cancelled for non-payment of selami within the stipulated period. Against such order, this court was moved on 31.1.84 and the concerned Rule, which was ultimately made absolute, was issued with a specific direction that the respondent should keep one plot of four cottahs in the Salt Lake City. Sector II, reserved, until further orders of this Court. It further appeared from the order-sheet of the learned Court below that on 28th July, 1987, it was directed that pending the final disposal of the matter and for proper interest of justice, the Writ petitioner respondent should deposit with the Registrar. Appellate Side, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- We have no evidence before us that this sum of Rs. It further appeared from the order-sheet of the learned Court below that on 28th July, 1987, it was directed that pending the final disposal of the matter and for proper interest of justice, the Writ petitioner respondent should deposit with the Registrar. Appellate Side, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- We have no evidence before us that this sum of Rs. 40,000/- was deposited. But the judgment appealed against shows that the petitioner duly deposited a sum of Rs. 35,000/- in the State Bank of India. 6. On the basis of the pleadings before him learned trial Judge formulated the following points : 1. Whether a case has been made for interference by this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, 2. Whether there has been any illegality committed by the respondent, 3. Whether the petitioner was guilty of laches, and, 4. Whether there should be a declaration that the petitioner would be eligible for the allotment as asked for determination. 7. From a reference to the judgment, as impeached, it would appear that the learned trial Judge bas observed that there was some assurance given to the Writ petitioner respondent, on the basis whereof, he acted to his detriment and there was failure on the part of the respondents before him to do due justice to the case of the Writ petitioner respondent, because of their silence and in not answering the queries by him. The learned trial Judge bas further observed that the case of the Writ petitioner respondent was not consered appropriately and such nun-consideration worked manifest in justice from service. He has further indicated that the respondents before him, being statutory functionaries, was required to act fairly, justly, reasonably and also in a responsible manner in dealing with the case and such formalities/have no been duly followed or complied with by them. However, because of his findings on the issues as referred to hereinbefore, the Rule, as indicated earlier, was made absolute and it was declared that the order, as impeached, was illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently, the respondents were directed to comply with the necessary formalities in the matter of allotment of the plot of land to the Writ petitioner respondent forthwith. 8. Mr. Chakraborty stated that apart from the deposit of Rs. 35,000/-, as recorded earlier another sum of Rs. 8. Mr. Chakraborty stated that apart from the deposit of Rs. 35,000/-, as recorded earlier another sum of Rs. 32,000/- was deposited and such deposit with the Reserve Bank of India would be evidenced from the Challan No. 0878. 9. It was the submission of Mr. Chakraborty that the document dated 7.4.79 in Annexure C, was not the letter of allotment, but the same was only an offer of allotment and in support of his submissions that the said document wall not an 'allotment order' but the same was only an 'offer of allotment', be referred to clause (b) (ii) as quoted hereinbefore, where repeatedly the authorities concerned have the term 'allotment order'. It was his specific submission that such being the position, apart the said Annexure C, a specific allotment order was required and necessary and the Writ petitioner respondent was required to deposit the necessary amount from the date of such letter of allotment and since the said letter of allotment bas not as yet been issued, so the order of cancellation, which was challenged in this Court was invalid. To establish as to what would mean by the word 'allot' Mr. Chakraborty referred to the dictionary meanings of the said word 'allot' from the Oxford and Websters Dictioneries and claimed that on the basis of the meanings as indicated therein, there was much substance in his submissions. 10. It was then submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that the appellant authorities before us, had not acted duly, fairly and reasonably and alternatively, they have really acted arbitrarily, in issuing the impugned letter and canceling the allotment and such cancellation was also claimed by him, to be made on unreasonable and not on bono fide grounds. It was also intended by him that the officer concerned, having given an assurance of allotment and he having acted to his detriment on the basis of such offer, since he had applied for loan for the concerned amount of R. 16,000/-, the appellant authorities were not justified in having the order of cancellation made or passed. It was also stated by him that the final stage for depositing the money has not as yet arrived, since, according to him, the allotment order has not been issued. It was also claimed by Mr. Chakraborty that such cancellation order was not only arbitrary, but the same was whimsical and devoid of reasonableness, fairness and equity. It was also stated by him that the final stage for depositing the money has not as yet arrived, since, according to him, the allotment order has not been issued. It was also claimed by Mr. Chakraborty that such cancellation order was not only arbitrary, but the same was whimsical and devoid of reasonableness, fairness and equity. 11. Apart from the above Mr. Chakraborty referred to sub-clause (i) of clause (b) 'and' sub-clause (ii) of the said clause and submitted that by the terms as incorporated in those sub-clauses, 'If differentiation has been made which was neither acceptable nor reasonable. In this proceeding; we' arc'-not required to' deal with the question of such differentiation, as, said to have been created by Mr. Chakraborty through sub-clauses (i) and (ii), since there has been no prayer for setting aside the offer in question on that ground. In support of his submissions, Mr. Chakraborty first referred to the case of (1) Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 . Thai was a case under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and the order in that case; was made on the basis that the terms relevant were not made known to the respondent in that appeal. Thereafter, reference was, made by Mr. Chakraborty to the case of (2) Dilbagh Rai Jerry v. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1974 SC 130 . A determination under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, as made and, the Supreme Court in the facts of that case on the question of the starting point of limitation, in preferring an application under section 15(2) proviso (1) of the Payment of Wages Act and ultimately, Krishna Iyer, J. concurring with the determination of Sarkatia, J. observed, that it is not right for a welfare State like ours to be Janus-faced, and while formulating the humanist project of legal aid to the poor, contest the claims of poor employees under it pleading limitation and the like. On the basis of such submissions, it was submitted that it would not be fair for the authorities, to take the point of limitation when the claim the employee concerned was honest. Then a reference was made by Mr. Chakraborty, to the case of (3) American Home Products Corporation v. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Another reported in AIR 1986 SC 137 . Then a reference was made by Mr. Chakraborty, to the case of (3) American Home Products Corporation v. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Another reported in AIR 1986 SC 137 . On the basis of the determinations as made in that case, there is no doubt that interference with any order can be made where there is manifest absurdity. 12. In short, Mr, Chakraborty claimed that because of the conduct of, the appellant authorities and since the Writ petitioner respondent, on the basis of his conduct, had to act to his, detriment and the order of cancellation was not a bona fide, but whimsical one, the Judgment and order as impeached, must be confirmed. 13. It was the claim and contention and submissions of Mr. Gupta, appearing for the, appellants, that there was admittedly non-payment of selami duly and in terms of the letter, dated 7 .4.1979. As indicated earlier, this letter was claimed by Mr. Chakraborty, not to be a letter of allotment, but only an offer of allotment and Mrs. Gupta claimed the said letter to be the allotment order. It was submitted by her that the first, letter dt. 23.3.1979, whereby the conditions were made known to the Writ petitioner respondent, for having the allotment, was a provisional one and since he expressed his willingness to accept the terms thereof, the second letter dt. 7.4.1979, which was really a final order of allotment, was issued and since there bas been non-compliance with the said order of allotment, the authorities concerned were justified in issuing the letter as impeached. It was her specific submission that from the intrinsic evidence as available from the records before us, it would appear that the Writ petitioner respondent, who was an Inspector Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, knew and understood be contents of the said offer letter and was required to comply with the sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) i.e. he should have, within 90 days from the date of issue of that letter, deposited Rs. 16,000/- and as be has not done so, so the authorities concerned were justified in issuing the impugned order of cancellation. 14. There is great force and substance in the submissions of Mr. 16,000/- and as be has not done so, so the authorities concerned were justified in issuing the impugned order of cancellation. 14. There is great force and substance in the submissions of Mr. Gupta and we find that the letter dated 7.4.1979, although mentioned the same to be a letter of offer of allotment, was really the letter of allotment, and the allotment was required to be made on the basis of fulfilment of the terms as contained therein. If that be not the construction, then an absurd situation will prevail, as even after issue of allotment order; there may be cases where parties will not make payments in time. We find that in his representations the Writ petitioner respondent has repeatedly used the term ‘deemed to have been allotted' and as such we feel that the Writ petitioner respondent was aware of the fact that by the record in Annexure C, dated 7.4.79, be was really given the allotment and we feel that the would have been entitled to get the actual allotment order, on fulfilling the terms contained therein, Admittedly, he bas not fulfilled such terms. 15. Now coming to the cases as cited at the Bar, we find that the case reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 has no application in this case, since, here, the terms were made known to the Writ petitioner respondent. We further find that the case reported in AIR 1974 SC 130 will have also no application, since the claim as made or put forward by the Writ petitioner respondent, according to us, was not bona fide, as he knew the terms and conditions, which be was required to fulfill or comply with. The proposition as laid down in AIR 1986 SC 137 cannot be doubled or disputed. But the said determination, according to us bas also no application since there is no manifest absurdity, in the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case. 16. Above being our findings, we feel that this appeal should be allowed and we order accordingly. The appeal is thus allowed. The Judgment and order, as impeached, are se& aside. There will be no order for costs. 17. We keep it on record that if the Writ petitioner respondent, on appropriate advice, applies for a fresh allotment, the same be considered favourably and in accordance with law. 18. The appeal is thus allowed. The Judgment and order, as impeached, are se& aside. There will be no order for costs. 17. We keep it on record that if the Writ petitioner respondent, on appropriate advice, applies for a fresh allotment, the same be considered favourably and in accordance with law. 18. If so advised, the Writ petitions respondent should, on the basis of this order, be entitled to the refund of the amount which he has deposited; The prayer for stay of operation of this order is refused. Guin, J.: I agree.