S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) TWO fold prayers have been made in this Writ Petition by the petitioner, namely, that the impugned order at annexure j dated 12. 12. 1994 be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to allot a plot admeasuring 1000 sq. mtrs. of the land at Pandesera industrial Estate to the petitioner and second prayer has been made that the allotment of plot should be made on the reduced rate as has been charged in other cases. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Chandresh J. Vin has given up the prayer regarding the allotment of plot admeasuring 1000 sq. mtrs in the aforesaid industrial estate to the petitioner. The facts which are necessary for the decision of this writ Petition are briefly stated : ( 3 ) FOR the expansion of the existing industry, the petitioner made application on 16th september, 1981 to the respondent Corporation for allotment of plot admeasuring 1000 sq. mtrs. Many other persons also had submitted applications for allotment of the plots to the Corporation on or about the time of application of the present petitioner. The petitioners industrial plot number is C-1-8 at GIDC Industrial Estate, Pandesara, Surat. The respondent Corporation vide letter dated 16th October, 1993 informed the petitioner that he was being allotted plot No. 341/3 which valued at Rs. 2,64,690/- at the rate of Rs. 500/- per square meter admeasuring 519 sq. mtrs. A copy of this letter has been produced with the petition at annexure b. The Corporation required the petitioner to deposit immediately an amount of Rs. 66,713/ -. The petitioner was not satisfied with the aforesaid offer made by the respondents as he has been allotted a plot admeasuring 519 sq. mtrs whereas he has demanded a plot admeasuring 1000 sq. mtrs. and secondly the rate at which it was allotted to him was much higher than what the rate at which plots have been allotted in the same industrial estate to other applicants. However, under protest, the petitioner deposited Rs. 66,713/- with the Corporation by a demand draft, a photo copy of which is submitted at annexure c to this petition. In furtherance of the payment of the aforesaid amount by the petitioner, the respondent has finally allotted plot No. 341/3 admeasuring 519 sq. However, under protest, the petitioner deposited Rs. 66,713/- with the Corporation by a demand draft, a photo copy of which is submitted at annexure c to this petition. In furtherance of the payment of the aforesaid amount by the petitioner, the respondent has finally allotted plot No. 341/3 admeasuring 519 sq. mtrs. to the petitioner vide letter dated 14. 12. 1993, at annexure d. Thereafter, the Corporation demanded from the petitioner for execution of the agreement so that the possession of the plot may be handed over to the petitioner. Certain further amount has also been demanded from the petitioner. The petitioner made demand to the corporation from time to time for the allotment of plot admeasuring 1000 sq. mtrs. but no heed was paid to the said demand. Thereafter, the petitioner sent notice through its advocate to the Corporation on 31st May, 1994, a copy of which is submitted at annexure h. In the said notice, the petitioner had ventilated his grievances that his demand for 1000 sq. mtrs. of land as well as the allotment to be made at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. mtrs. , the rate at which allotment has been made to other applicants who moved their applications after the application of the petitioner. Certain other grievances have also been made by the petitioner with which I am not presently concerned in this Writ Petition as that grievance has not been pressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3 ( 4 ) THE Corporation has replied to the notice of the petitioners advocate vide letter dated 9. 8. 1994, annexure i and refuted all the demands. The petitioner sent a detailed reply to the said letter of the Corporation through his advocate, a copy of which has been produced at annexure i. Thereafter, the Corporation vide its letter dated 12. 12. 1994 has cancelled the allotment of the plot No. 341/3 made in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not executed the agreement within the stipulated period. The petitioner has made further grievance that the amount which was deposited by him was forfeited. ( 5 ) THE Corporation filed reply to the Writ Petition and contested the same. The petitioner has made further grievance that the amount which was deposited by him was forfeited. ( 5 ) THE Corporation filed reply to the Writ Petition and contested the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that all the allottees including the petitioner have submitted applications at the same time, may be a few days difference here and there. But while making allotment to the petitioner and other applications, hostile discrimination is made in the matter of rate at which the petitioner has been charged. So far as the petitioner is concerned, cost of the plot has been charged at the rate of Rs. 500/- per sq. mtr. whereas in the case of other applicants, they were charged at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. mtr. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all the applicants voluntarily submitted their applications for allotment of plots in the industrial estate, pandesara and as such merely because some of the applicants have deposited the cost of the land calculated on the basis of then prevailing rate, they cannot be given benefits of their own acts. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation contended that price has been charged at two different rates by the Corporation as per resolution No. 49 passed in the Board meeting No. 339 held on 30th April, 1994. The Board vide its resolution No. 49 decided that the applicants who applied with deposit for plot, the price prevailing on the date of application plus simple interest be charged as the rate of the plot. The day on which the offer of allotment was made to the petitioner, the prevalent rate of the plot was Rs. 500/- per sq. mtr. The petitioner had not deposited along with the application the cost of the plot. This decision of the Board is not questioned by the petitioner before this Court. It has next been contended that there is no question of discrimination because the applicants of the category to which the petitioner belongs and the other applicants belong are distinct and separate. ( 7 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the parties. It has next been contended that there is no question of discrimination because the applicants of the category to which the petitioner belongs and the other applicants belong are distinct and separate. ( 7 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the parties. In para 4 of the affidavit in reply to the Writ Petition, it is the admission of the corporation that as per the policy of the Corporation, price is to be charged at the rate prevailing at the time the offer is made. All the applicants, including the petitioner, were made offer of allotment of the land at the said industrial estate at the same time. As per this policy, reference of which has been made above, the price is to be charged at the prevailing rate and that was Rs. 500/- per sq. mtr. at the relevant time admittedly. The justification which has been given to make this discrimination does not stand to the test of reasonableness. It is not the case of the Corporation that it has laid down any policy or there is any regulation which provides that the applicants while making application for allotment of plot have to deposit at the same time the cost of the plot demanded at the rate as prevailing on the said date. It is also not the case of the Corporation that there was any such stipulation in the advertisement regarding deposit of the cost of the plot along with the application. The other applicants voluntarily or unilaterally deposited the cost of the plot along with the application. It is not in dispute that those applicants were not allotted plots at that time and their applications were kept pending and on all the applications including the application of the petitioner decision has been taken in 1990s to make allotment of the plots on the basis of the applications which have been submitted in 1981. In view of these facts, I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation that the petitioner and other applicants does not constitute one class. The petitioner and other applicants certainly constitute one class and merely on the ground that those applicants voluntarily, without there being any requirement from the side of the Corporation deposited the cost of the land, it does not become a distinct and separate class. The petitioner and other applicants certainly constitute one class and merely on the ground that those applicants voluntarily, without there being any requirement from the side of the Corporation deposited the cost of the land, it does not become a distinct and separate class. In the case of those applicants, the Corporation has taken a decision to allot land to them on the basis of the prevalent rate on the date of submission of the application with a condition to charge interest on the amount. Merely because the Corporation has decided to charge price at the different rate, that will not come in the way of the petitioner and the petitioner has right to challenge the action of the respondent Corporation in this Writ Petition and that the decision of the Corporation is subject to judicial review under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the touchstone of discrimination. When the policy of the Corporation provides for charging of price as per the prevalent price on the date of offer, then, I fail to see any justification to make deviation there from only on the ground that some of the applicants have chosen to deposit the amount at the time of submission of the applications. The matter would have been different in case the policy of the Corporation or some regulation provides for deposit of the cost along with the application. Then in such cases, the application of the petitioner would have been incomplete or defective. But in the absence of such requirement, only on the basis of some voluntary action of the applicant, the corporation could not have denied the same benefits to the petitioner which has been given to other applicants in the matter of rate of the land, when applications were submitted by all of them at the same time. ( 8 ) THE petitioner was justified to make claim for equal treatment in the matter of cost of the land to be charged. The petitioner was willing to take the plot. His willingness is clearly established from the fact that immediately on receipt of the letter of allotment of the plot, he deposited Rs. 66,000/- and odd. In these circumstances, the cancellation of allotment of plot of the petitioner for non-execution of the lease deed cannot be allowed to stand. ( 9 ) IN the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. 66,000/- and odd. In these circumstances, the cancellation of allotment of plot of the petitioner for non-execution of the lease deed cannot be allowed to stand. ( 9 ) IN the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. It is hereby directed that the corporation shall charge the cost of the land from the petitioner at the rate at which it has been ordered to be charged under resolution No. 49 taken in Board Meeting No. 339 held on 30th April, 1994 from other applicants. The order cancelling the allotment of plot of the petitioner as communicated by letter dated 12. 12. 1994 is set aside. The writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. .