JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral) - This order will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 15698, 12362 of 1990 and 2439 and 3910 and 12681 of 1991. 2. The Chief Administrator of the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Haryana (hereinafter called the Authority) issued a letter (Annexure P-1) dated 30.3.1987 authorising the Estate Officers in the Urban Estates under its administrative control to dispose of the unsold plots within their respective jurisdiction on First come, first served basis. It was further directed that the applications for allotment of plots be accepted on plain paper with 25% of the costs of the plot in the shape of a bank draft. Pursuant to the aforesaid instructions, the petitioners applied for the allotment of plots in the urban estate at Jagadhari on various dates from February 1988 onwards. The plots were, however, not allotted to the petitioners but after a lapse of 2/1-2 years, they received identical letters dated 6.7.1990 (copies annexed as Annexure P-5 and P-6 to the petition) intimating that their applications could not be considered for allotment as per the existing policy and they were advised to take their refund or in the alternative, they could keep their earnest money with the Authority so that their cases could be kept alive for subsequent allotments. It is the petitioners case that some of the petitioners took the refund whereas the earnest money with respect to some of the petitioners continued to remain with the Authority. 3. The petitioners have filed the present petition impugning the letters, Annexures P-5 and P-6 and other similar letters issued to the other petitioners on the plea that once having made an offer in terms of the Annexures P-1, it was not open to the authorities to withdraw the offer and that too without adequate reasons. 4. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it has been pointed out, inter alia, that the Authority had decided to change the policy for transfer of unsold plots and a decision to that effect had been taken on 14.8.1987 and had also been circulated to all the Estate Officers vide Annexure R-1 dated 28.9.1987 and that under this policy, all the available vacant plots were to be sold by public auction. It has also been pleaded that a total of 756 plots of various categories were available in the urban estates in question under the scheme, Annexure P-1, and the Government had carved out two different modes for allotment of plots; one for the general public and the other for Government servants and the last allotment to the general public had made on 17.5.1988 and to the Government servants on 17.6.1988 on the principle of First come, first serve and that the aforesaid scheme was abandoned when all the plots, which were available upto the two dates given above, had been exhausted. 5. Mr. Sibal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has urged that the respondents were governed by the principle of promissory estoppel and once the petitioners had deposited the earnest money, they were entitled to seek plots as per their entitlement in the light of the policy, Annexure P-1 and such right could not be taken away by the change of policy Annexure R-1 date 28.9.1987. It was also argued that in a similar situation, the Civil Court at Kaithal had held the claimants entitled to the allotment of plots and a similar defence taken by the respondents had been repelled by the Civil Court and this judgment had been upheld by the first appellate Court and even by the High Court. 6. It is true that it would perhaps be difficult for the respondents to justify a change of policy, which has been vide Annexure R-1 to defeat the petitioners claim as they had deposited the earnest money as per policy, Annexure P-1. This is in fact the import of the judgment of the civil court, referred to above. It has, however, come on record that under the policy, Annexure P-1, the last plot allotted to the general public was on 17.5.1988 whereas the last plot earmarked for Government servants was allotted on 17.6.1988 and that the policy had been discontinued when all the 756 plots available had been exhausted. 7. Mr. Sibal has, however, referred to Annexure P-14, a news item published in The Tribune dated 16.12.1999 in which it had been mentioned that 91 plots in Sector 17, Jagadhari were available for allotment. 7. Mr. Sibal has, however, referred to Annexure P-14, a news item published in The Tribune dated 16.12.1999 in which it had been mentioned that 91 plots in Sector 17, Jagadhari were available for allotment. Be that as it may, the petitioners were entitled to seek allotment only upto the year 1988 when the plots which were then available, had been exhausted as it is not clear from Annexure P-14, as to whether 91 plots mentioned therein were available for allotment on that date or whether they had become available for allotment subsequently. 8. It is the conceded position that the earnest money deposited by some of the petitioners is still lying with the respondents. The petitioners may, therefore, make an application for the refund of the amount and if they do so, the respondents shall refund the amount to them with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.