JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. 1. Rambali Singh has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the order dated 27.9.1990 passed by the Allahabad Development Authority (A.D.A.) be quashed whereby the subsequent allotment dated 23.8.1990 :in favour of the petitioner concerning E.W.S. Type-II, flat in house No. 2, Block No. 6 in Sulem Sarai Housing Scheme (for short 'the flat') has been cancelled!, when this writ petition was filed on 12.10.1990 a counter-affidavit was called from the A.D.A. By the interim order the dispossession of the petitioner-RAMBALI Singh was stayed. The A.D.A. has filed a counter-affidavit. 2. Smt. Sulemani Begum, admittedly the original allottee of the flat, has made an impleadment application which is supported by an affidavit described as counter affidavit of SMT. Sulemani Begum. The petitioner Rambali Singh has replied to the contents thereof by his rejoinder-affidavit. Shri Nasiruzzama on behalf of the petitioner-Rambali Singh,, Shri Ashok Mohiley on behalf of the A.D.A. and Shri Raj Kumar Jain on behalf of SMT. Sulemani Begum (original allottee) have been heard at length and the entire record has been perused minutely. As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. The impleadment application is allowed. SMT. Sulemani Begum be impleaded as respondent No. 3. There was an open advertisement by the A.D.A. concerning the Sulem Sarai Housing Scheme in which the flat in question exists. On 18.1.1988 the original allottee Smt. Sulemani Begum obtained allotment in her name of the flat in question. It was found by her that the flat was yet not complete and the doors, windows and necessary amenities including electricity were wanting. This forced the original allottee to make several complaints to the A.D.A. one of which is dated 14.3.1988, a true copy of which has been filed along with the impleadment application. However, the possession of the flat was handed over to the original allottee on 8.4.1988. It is not in dispute (that some instalments remain due as a result of which the A.D.A. sent a letter to the original allottee that the sum of Rs. 3,250 should be deposited by her before 20.8.1990. The original allottee, therefore, deposited the said sum as required in the notice, on 17.8.1990. 3. Something then seems to have happened in the office of the A.D.A. extraneously. 3,250 should be deposited by her before 20.8.1990. The original allottee, therefore, deposited the said sum as required in the notice, on 17.8.1990. 3. Something then seems to have happened in the office of the A.D.A. extraneously. No advertisement concerning the flat was made and no application by any open method was invited from any prospective allottee but the flat in question appears to have been settled in favour of the petitioner-Rambali Singh on 23.8.1990. On that very date, i.e., 23.8.1990, Rambali Singh is said to have deposited the required amount and the agreement between the A.D.A. and Rambali Singh was also executed on 23.8. 1990 and according to admitted case between the petitioner-Rambali Singh and A.D.A., the possession of the flat was handed over to Rambali Singh on 24.8.1990. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of this allotment order Rambali Singh took physical possession of the flat. It should be repeated that the original allottee, Smt. Sulemani Begum had already complained about the incomplete structure and prayed for necessary fittings to be provided so that she could leave the tenanted accommodation and come to her own flat. This, however, was not to be provided. 4. Thus begins the exercise of the first allottee to seek justice. She made complaint to the A.D.A. against the subsequent allotment in favour of the petitioner. Fortunately, enough good sense prevailed on the officials of the A.D.A. and they set up an enquiry. In the enquiry, it was found that some of the officials of A.D.A. had connived and also colluded with the petitioner-Rambali Singh. The counter-affidavit of A.D.A. indicates that as a result of the enquiry, the A.D.A. has already taken disciplinary proceedings against some officials one of whom has been terminated from employment and against the others some adverse entries have been made in the service record. This was immediately followed by the Impugned letter/order dated 27.9.1990 passed by the A.D.A. asking the petitioner-Rambali Singh to vacate the flat. It is this action of the A.D.A. which is the subject-matter of this writ petition. This was immediately followed by the Impugned letter/order dated 27.9.1990 passed by the A.D.A. asking the petitioner-Rambali Singh to vacate the flat. It is this action of the A.D.A. which is the subject-matter of this writ petition. The bare narration of the facts; as stated above leaves no manner for doubt that gross injustice was perpetrated towards the original allottee which has been lawfully rectified by the A.D.A. and, therefore, the order dated 27.9.1990 is based upon truth and justice which should not require any interference from this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Shri Nasiruzzama vehemently argued that the A.D.A. has committed a great default in not affording any hearing to the petitioner-Rambali Singh before passing the impugned order dated 27.9.1990. He further drew the attention of the court to the allegation that the petitioner has spent more than rupees one lac to make accommodation habitable and is living in the flat and thus it was argued that the aforesaid order dated 27.9.1990 should be quashed. 6. Fraud and collusion can never defeat justice. The undue haste of allotting the accommodation on the 23rd August, 1990 when the original allottee was to make the payment till 20th August, 1990, narrates its own tale. Over and above, the intentional commission of not entering the fact of deposit of the balance amount by the original allottee in the relevant ledger by the officials concerned added fuel to the fire. It was a plan, well thought of and executed to deny the legal rights to the original allottee and try to create an ostensible right in favour of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no interference in this writ petition is called for in so far as the notice/order of the A.D.A. dated 27.9.1990 asking the petitioner to vacate the flat in question is concerned. Writ petition consequently must fail. 7. Accommodation by any means is a difficult goal to achieve these days. One may only on humanitarian grounds, as was argued by Shri Nasiruzzama, look to the actions of the petitioner with a little practical approach. Writ petition consequently must fail. 7. Accommodation by any means is a difficult goal to achieve these days. One may only on humanitarian grounds, as was argued by Shri Nasiruzzama, look to the actions of the petitioner with a little practical approach. From this point of view, it appears desirable to direct that if A.D.A. can provide an accommodation to the petitioner also, in lieu of one which was allotted to him by the A.D.A. on 23.8.1990, the said alternate accommodation should be made available to the petitioner also as early as possible. 8. To be more fair to Shri Ashok Mohiley, learned counsel for the A.D.A. he stated that on the special facts and circumstances of the present case if the petitioner applies for allotment of an accommodation in one of the flats either in Neem Sarai or in Devghat Jhalwa Housing Schemes, the petitioner should be allotted one flat subject to the terms and conditions for such an allotment already framed. It will be open to the petitioner-Rambali Singh to make an application for such an allotment if so advised and desired and the A.D.A. will make the allotment for which the prayer may be made. In such an event, the payment already made by Rambali Singh for the allotment of the flat in question shall be adjusted towards the price that may be payable by the petitioner for the subsequent allotment as directed above. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 12.10.1990 is vacated. The parties will bear their own costs.