Judgment 1. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the letter dated 23rd February, 1990 as contained in Annexure VI to the writ petition. 2. The aforementioned letter was sent by the Joint Secretary of the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad to the petitioner intimating her that due to unavoidable circumstances the total scheme has been revised in the manner indicated in Annexure-4 attached thereto. Mr. A.N. Bhargava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the decision to revise the scheme to the detriment to the petitioner's interest is arbitrary, vague and, accordingly, it be quashed. He further contended that as the lands were available for the purposes of scheme and, therefore, the impugned communication/decision be quashed. 3. Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit reads thus:- "4. That a scheme for allotment of plots was floated by the answering respondent Authority in 1986 and the size of plots proposed to be allotted was tentative because of the fact that some land for the relevant scheme was under acquisition. But the said acquisition was under challenge in some of the writ petitions before the Supreme Court and stay orders were granted therein restraining the answering respondent Authority not to dispossess the petitioners. Since despite best efforts, some of those writ petitions could not be disposed of as yet and the interim orders by the Hon'ble Court are in force, and in some of them the notifications have been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court. The Authority was constrained to decide to reduce the area of the proposed plots proportionately in view of the land available for allotment. Apart from the above fact, keeping in view the hard pressing need of housing activity in the capital region, it was considered necessary to reduce the area so that the maximum number of persons may be accommodated and they can be provided accommodation. It is, thus, the proposed size of plots was reduced." 4. Paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit reads thus:- "12. That the contents of para 7 of the writ petition was denied. The answering respondent Authority is prepared to fulfil the contract on its part provided the petitioner is willing to accept the revised scheme. It is, thus, the proposed size of plots was reduced." 4. Paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit reads thus:- "12. That the contents of para 7 of the writ petition was denied. The answering respondent Authority is prepared to fulfil the contract on its part provided the petitioner is willing to accept the revised scheme. Allegations to the contrary are incorrect." It is true that by filing a rejoinder on 11-11-98 it has been stated, inter alia, that details of the writ petitions have not been given and that there was nothing in the scheme that the area of the plot will be reduced but we have no reason to doubt the correctness of the stand taken aforementioned by the Ghaziabad Development Authority especially in regard to the institution of several cases. The petitioner has not brought on the record the brochure of the scheme in question, but Sri Bhargava shows us the brochure of 'Pratap Vihar' saying that similar was the brochure under scheme. The brochure of this scheme contains Clause No. 20, which reads thus:- "20. Important notices. – (1) Decision of the Vice-Chairman of Ghaziabad Development Authority will be final in every matter related to this scheme. (2) Houses will be sold on "as is where is" basis and no objection on the construction or the material used in construction will be entertained. This is also being made clear that no application/request for any alteration or modification in the construction of houses will be entertained. (3) At the time of allotment Ghaziabad Development Authority has a right to change or alter any term or condition of this scheme and all such changes will be acceptable to the applicant/allottee." 5. Sub-clauses (1) and (3) categorically show that the decision of the Vice-Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority will be final in every matter relating to the scheme and that at the time of allotment the Ghaziabad Development Authority has a right to change or alter any term or condition and all such changes will be acceptable to the applicant/allottee. 6. Clause No. 23 of the Brochure reads thus:- "23. Allocation of available plots will be made by lottery. Area of plots may increase of decrease. 6. Clause No. 23 of the Brochure reads thus:- "23. Allocation of available plots will be made by lottery. Area of plots may increase of decrease. Actual area of plot will be acceptable to the allottee." In the aforementioned view of the matter we are of the view that the action of the Ghaziabad Development Authority is not vitiated on account of any arbitrariness so as to require our interference under discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In fairness to Mr. Bhargava we also proceed to deal his contention that the action of the Ghaziabad Development Authority is vitiated on account of the doctrine of promissory estoppel inasmuch as the petitioner had deposited Rs. 54,200/- on 26-12-1986, which were asked to be deposited till 30th December, 1986, vide letter dated 24th September, 1986 of the Vice-Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the scheme in question has been revised on account of any profiteering purposes and that the petitioner was wholly aware at the time of applying in the scheme in question that it is purely tentative and the cost and size are-subject to revision which, if does not suit her she can withdraw her amount with interest. In this backdrop we are of the view that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not applicable. 8. At this stage of this judgment Sri Bhargava combs up with a prayer to direct the respondents to execute the deed and complete the formalities in regard to the land which is flow available. We think that at least this request is most justified. Accordingly we direct the petitioner to con tact the Vice- chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad within one month from today by expressing her willingness in writing and if she does not so in that event the Vice-Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad w II be obliged to pass appropriate orders in regard to the allotment of the land is per the choice of the petitioner in accordance with law. For the reasons aforementioned, this writ petition is dismissed except with the directions issued in Paragraph 11. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to cost. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, this writ petition is dismissed except with the directions issued in Paragraph 11. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to cost. 10. The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order within one week to Sri Vijay Manohir Sahai, learned Standing Counsel for tie Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad for its communication to and follow up action by the Vice-Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghjaziabad. Petition dismissed.