JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision of respondent No. 2 conveyed by respondent No. 3 vide letter dated January 31, 2001 (P9), whereby allotment of flat No. 6B on the third floor has been changed to flat No. 8C on the fourth floor, and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to allot flat No. 6B on the third floor to the petitioner, as originally allotted to her in the draw of lots held on July 30, 2000. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner became a member of Punjab and Haryana High Court Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Society) on December 15, 1995. She continued to make deposits of the instalments as the costs of the flats constructed by the Society in the Mansa Devi Complex, Sector 5, Panchkula. On completion of the construction of the flats, a draw of lots for allotment of the flats among the members of the Society was held on July 30, 2000. The petitioner was allotted a flat on the third floor on provisional basis subject to the reconciliation of the account by her as it was pointed out to her that the payment made by her was deficient to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. She disputed the claim of the Society. On August 1, 2000 the petitioner vide letter (Annexure P3) asked the Society to furnish her details of the amount allegedly due from her. On August 3, 2000, respondent No. 3 returned the letter in original with the remarks that the petitioner can check up the record on August 4, 2000. It has been alleged that the petitioner was informed that the difference of Rs. 20,000/- pertains to August, 1999. The petitioner was also required to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for the allotment of the house on the third floor. On August 8, 2000 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 35,000/- vide cheque dated August 7, 2000, subject to the finalisation of the accounts with the Society. In the meantime, the petitioner was allotted a flat on the fourth floor by the Society. 15,000/- for the allotment of the house on the third floor. On August 8, 2000 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 35,000/- vide cheque dated August 7, 2000, subject to the finalisation of the accounts with the Society. In the meantime, the petitioner was allotted a flat on the fourth floor by the Society. The petitioner challenged the allotment so made to her on the fourth floor. She served a legal notice to the Society. She filed the present writ petition to challenge the action of the Society. In the writ petition, the petitioner arrayed only the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Haryana, and the President and the Secretary of the Society as the respondents. Rest of the respondents have been arrayed as respondents on their request to contest the petition. 3. The petition has been contested. Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 have filed written statements. Respondent Nos. 1 and 10 have not filed any written statement to contest the petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case it appears that the petitioner and one Sarla Arora were allotted flats on the third floor in the draw of lots held on July 30, 2000 on provisional basis. Their names appear at serial Nos. 6 and 13, respectively, in the list attached with Annexure P2. Vide Annexure P2, Shri Subhash Sachdeva, respondent No. 3, informed the petitioner that she had been allotted a flat on the third floor and she was asked to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 15,000/- by August 10, 2000. Further, it was also conveyed to her that if she failed to deposit the said amount by the stipulated date, the allotment made to her on the third floor shall stand cancelled and she will be pushed to the fourth floor. The petitioner made the deposit of Rs. 35,000/- on August 7, 2000. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was towards arrears and the remaining sum of Rs. 15,000/- was towards the allotment on the third floor. 4. The petitioner made the deposit of Rs. 35,000/- on August 7, 2000. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was towards arrears and the remaining sum of Rs. 15,000/- was towards the allotment on the third floor. 4. However, a look at Annexure R-2/9, which is a copy of the resolution dated July 30, 2000 passed by the Society, would show that it had been mentioned therein that the "House was further informed that Smt. Sarla Arora and Geeta Sood are deficient in payment to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 20,000/-, respectively, but both disputed and claimed that they had already made the full payments. House resolved that these two members be provisionally included in the draw subject to reconciliation and if it was found that they had not actually deposited deficient amount they will face expulsion from the allotted floors and pushed to the 4th floor........" The petitioner as well as Smt. Sarla Arora were found deficient in the payment of the amounts due from them. A further resolution dated October 10, 2000 (Annexure R-2/11) was approved in the General Body Meeting and the two "provisional members of 3rd floor, i.e. Smt. Geeta Sood and Mrs. Sarla Arora" were pushed to the fourth floor and the petitioner was allotted flat No. 8C. The flats on the third floor, which were provisionally allotted to both of them, were allotted to Ms. Vijay Kohli and Mr. Sham Lal. It may, however, be mentioned that by the time notice was issued on February 15, 2001, the flats on the third floor had already been allotted to Ms. Vijay Kohli and Mr. Sham Lal, and the full facts had not brought to the notice of the Court. 5. It has been held by their Lordships of Honble the Supreme Court in the case reported as Myurdhwaj Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Delhi Cooperative Tribunal and others, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2410, as under :- ".......To what extent a default is going to effect a Society will depend on facts and circumstances of each case which has to be left at the discretion of each Society. It is not proper even for the Court to interfere with such a discretion, except when it is arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, against any statutory provision or against orders having force of law. It is not proper even for the Court to interfere with such a discretion, except when it is arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, against any statutory provision or against orders having force of law. This will not be possible if strict principle of seniority is followed. However, it is open for a Society to give weightage to seniority depending on facts of each case. Within permissible limits it is always open to lay down its principle which is just, fair and proper. When a Society could decide the manner of allotment by instalments or other modes, there is no inhibition to it to modify it in case conditions are not complied by its member......." In view of the aforesaid authority of Honble the Supreme Court, I do not find that any arbitrary act has been committed by the Society. The petitioner has been proved to be a defaulter on the date when her name was provisionally included in the draw of lots held on July 30, 2000. The allotment of flat on the third floor was provisional, which was subject to the verification of the account. The payment of the amount of Rs. 35,000/-, which included the amount of arrears to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-, on August 8, 2000 by her was of no use for the allotment of flat on the third floor. The Society was within its right to push her to the fourth floor when on verification it was found that she was really a defaulter. Moreover, the persons who have been allotted flats on the third floor, consequent upon the cancellation of the flats allotted to the petitioner and Mrs. Sarla Arora, have made lot of improvements in their respective of flats. It would not be possible at this stage to put back the clock. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. The Society is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 15,000/-, which had been deposited by the petitioner in view of the allotment made to her on the third floor, forthwith. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.