JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioner was an applicant for the allotment of residential plot in Dharuhera. Vide letter dated August 20, 1998, the petitioner was allotted a plot measuring 300 sq. metres for a price of Rs. 5,70,600/-. 10% of the price viz. Rs. 57,060/- had been paid by the petitioner along with the application. An amount of Rs. 85,590/- had to be paid within 30 days of the receipt of the letter of allotment. Petitioner states that he had received the letter of allotment on August 24, 1998. He further states that before the expiry of 30 days, he sent a communication on September 18, 1998, with the request that he was unable to accept the allotment and that his letter may be treated as "refusal in terms of para 4" of the letter of allotment. He further requested that the amount of Rs. 57,060/- paid by him may be refunded. Vide letter dated October 8, 1998, he was informed that his request had been received on September 29, 1998. Since it was beyond the prescribed period of 30 days, the earnest money could not be refunded. The petitioner served a notice and failed to get the relief. He has filed the present writ petition. He prays for the issue of a direction to the respondents to make the refund. 2. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand as taken in the letter dated October 8, 1998 (Annexure R-2) with the written statement has been reiterated. 3. The petitioner has filed a replication reiterating the facts as stated in the writ petition. He has also averred that he had sent the letter dated September 18, 1998 by registered post. A copy of the receipt has been produced as Annexure P-6. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. Rajesh Garg, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in refusing to refund the money is wholly illegal and arbitrary. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by Mr. J.V. Yadav, appearing for the respondents. 5. A copy of the letter of allotment has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by Mr. J.V. Yadav, appearing for the respondents. 5. A copy of the letter of allotment has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. In para 4 it has been stated as under : "In case you refuse to accept the allotment you shall communicate your refusal by a registered letter within 30 days from the date of issue of this allotment letter failing which this allotment shall stand cancelled and the earnest money deposited by you shall also stand forfeited by authority and you shall have no claim for damages." 6. A perusal of the above stipulation in the letter of allotment shows that the allottee was entitled to refuse the acceptance of allotment. He had to communicate his refusal by registered post. The needful had to be done within 30 days from the date of the issue of the allotment letter. It was only in the event of the allottees failure to do so that the money deposited by him was to be forfeited. 7. What is the position in the present case ? 8. Admittedly, the allotment letter had been issued on August 20, 1998. The petitioner had sent his refusal within 30 days viz. on September 18, 1998 by registered post. Still further, the extract of the copy of the envelope, in which the letter of allotment had been sent has been produced as Annexure P-2. The letter of allotment is alleged to have been received by the petitioner on August 24, 1998. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner had sent his refusal within less than 30 days from the date of the despatch as well as the receipt of the letter of allotment. Still further, the respondents had ordered that the refusal has to be communicated by registered post. Thus, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to communicate his refusal by any other process. In this situation, he was forced to employ the postal agency as the means of communication. That being so, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the delay caused by the postal department. The letter, which was delivered by the petitioner to the postal authorities on September 18, 1998, was handed over to the respondents on September 29, 1998. The petitioner cannot be blamed for this delay. 9. That being so, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the delay caused by the postal department. The letter, which was delivered by the petitioner to the postal authorities on September 18, 1998, was handed over to the respondents on September 29, 1998. The petitioner cannot be blamed for this delay. 9. Another fact, which deserves notice is that even though the petitioner had complied with the strict terms of the contract, there was no justification for the action of the respondents in forfeiting the entire amount deposited by the petitioner by way of earnest money 10. No other point has been raised. 11. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition. The amount of Rs. 57,060/- shall be refunded to the petitioner within one week from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Failure to do so, shall entitle the petitioner to recover the amount within interest @ 12% from October 1, 1998 till the date of payment. Petition allowed.