ORDER : Shivaraj V. Patil, J. The order dated 6-11-1996 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court allowing the writ petition filed by Respondent 1 is under challenge. The appellant Corporation published an advertisement for allotment of industrial plots in Phase IX, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. Respondent 1 applied for the allotment of an industrial plot pursuant to the said advertisement. He was allotted Industrial Plot No. P-195 measuring 478 sq yd on 25-9-1987. Pursuant to the said allotment, he deposited 40% of the tentative price fixed for the plot. Some persons who were applicants for allotment of plots, could not succeed, in other words, they were not allotted plots. They filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the process of allotment of plots made to the allottees. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, by the order dated 2-6-1989, cancelled the allotment of plots made pursuant to the aforementioned advertisement and directed that fresh advertisement be made for allotment of plots. Thirty-seven writ petitions were filed by the persons whose allotments were cancelled. Those writ petitions were heard by the Division Bench of the High Court and disposed of by order dated 13-1-1994 in the following terms: "For the reasons stated above, we allow these writ petitions and hold that the judgment dated 2-6-1989 rendered in CWP No. 6694 of 1987 and the connected writ petitions whereby the allotment of industrial plots made in favour of the persons like the petitioners was cancelled, will be ineffective so far as the rights of the petitioners are concerned. The Corporation is directed to make allotment of industrial plots to the petitioners as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the letters of allotment. However, it is made clear that the Corporation will be entitled to claim additional price of the plots on account of enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. In view of the very fair stand taken by the counsel for the Corporation, we make no order as to costs." 2. As can be seen from the order extracted above, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cancelling the allotment was rendered ineffective so far as the rights of the writ petitioners were concerned. It may be made clear here itself that Respondent 1 was not one of those 37 writ petitioners. As can be seen from the order extracted above, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cancelling the allotment was rendered ineffective so far as the rights of the writ petitioners were concerned. It may be made clear here itself that Respondent 1 was not one of those 37 writ petitioners. Pursuant to the order made by the learned Single Judge, the appellants addressed a letter to Respondent 1, mentioning the subject as allotment of Industrial Plot No. P-195 and stating that a sum of Rs 17,032 was returned by a bank draft dated 21-10-1987. Respondent 1 received the bank draft and encashed the same. Respondent 1 neither returned the bank draft nor protested for the refund and also did not make any representation in that regard. As directed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6698 of 1987, a fresh advertisement was published by the appellants on 9-5-1990. Respondent 1 did not apply for allotment of any industrial plot pursuant to the said advertisement as well. Then also, he did not challenge the cancellation of allotment of the plot made to him. Respondent 1 claimed that he made the representation on 23-1-1994 i.e. after the judgment was pronounced by the Division Bench on 13-1-1994 in the writ petitions filed by 37 other petitioners. Thereafter, Respondent 1 filed writ petition on 10-3-1996 seeking relief similar to the relief granted to 37 writ petitioners by the Division Bench. On behalf of the appellants, counter-affidavit was filed before the High Court. In para 2 of the said counter-affidavit pointing out the delay and laches on the part of Respondent 1, it is stated thus: "2. That the writ petition otherwise also suffers from the vice of delay and laches. The amount of Rs 17,032 sent by the petitioner vide bank draft dated 21-10-1987 was returned to him on 13-11-1987 vide communication, Annexure P-8. He got this credited in his account. He has clearly mentioned in para 17 of the writ petition that he has no receipt of letter, Annexure P-8 with which the said bank draft was returned to him, he had come to know that this was on the basis of judgment passed in CWP No. 6698 of 1987 vide which allotment made to the petitioner had been cancelled. He has clearly mentioned in para 17 of the writ petition that he has no receipt of letter, Annexure P-8 with which the said bank draft was returned to him, he had come to know that this was on the basis of judgment passed in CWP No. 6698 of 1987 vide which allotment made to the petitioner had been cancelled. A cause of action had arisen at that time to the petitioner to challenge this cancellation as others had done by filing writ petition in this Hon’ble Court, as a result of which, the orders cancelling their allotments were made ineffective. The petitioner has not given explanation for the abnormal delay i.e. 7-9 years in filing this writ petition. The same, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches." 3. Again in para 19 of the said counter-affidavit, the appellants pointed out as to how the case of Respondent 1 was not similar to the 37 writ petitioners, whose writ petitions were disposed of by the Division Bench on 13-1-1994. 4. The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, by the impugned order disposed of the writ petition, as already stated above, on the ground that Respondent 1, is similarly placed when compared to 37 writ petitioners, whose writ petitions were allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the earlier writ petitions. The High Court in the impugned order did not consider the question of delay and laches in entertaining the writ petition. Even no reference is made to the stand taken by the appellants in the counter-affidavit in that regard. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court was not at all right and justified in granting relief to Respondent 1, who filed writ petition in 1996, even when the initial amount deposited by him was refunded as early as on 24-4-1990 apart from the fact that the learned Single Judge had allowed Writ Petition No. 6698 of 1987 on 2-6-1989 itself cancelling the allotment of plots made to the persons including Respondent 1. He also submitted that Respondent 1 did not challenge the cancellation of allotment made to him even after the second advertisement was made on 9-5-1990. He also submitted that Respondent 1 did not challenge the cancellation of allotment made to him even after the second advertisement was made on 9-5-1990. This being the position, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained on the ground of delay and laches. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondent 1 made submissions supporting the impugned order. He contended that Respondent 1 was not at all aware of the cancellation of allotment of plot made to him and no communication was made to him intimating the cancellation of allotment of the plot. The learned counsel added that Respondent 1 made the representation immediately after the Division Bench delivered the judgment in the case of allottees who were similarly placed. According to him, the High Court was right and justified in granting relief to Respondent 1, as was done by the Division Bench of the High Court in respect of other allottees. 7. From the dates and events mentioned above, it appears to us that Respondent 1 was not vigilant and did not approach the High Court seeking remedy within the reasonable time. It appears, he was watching the proceedings in the writ petitions filed by 37 other petitioners. When they got the relief, he became active and as claimed, made a representation. Even thereafter, he did not file the writ petition immediately, in other words, the Division Bench pronounced the judgment on 13-1-1994 but he filed the writ petition on 10-3-1996, that is, after more than two years. Probably, Respondent 1 wanted to take advantage of the relief granted to other writ petitioners who had approached the High Court early. It is unfortunate that the High Court did not focus its attention on this aspect even when the appellants had specifically pointed out this aspect of delay and laches on the part of Respondent 1. Respondent 1 did not think it necessary or appropriate to approach the High Court early on more than 4 occasions: (i) when the learned Single Judge cancelled the allotment; (ii) when the refund was made; (iii) when the second advertisement was published; and (iv) even immediately after the Division Bench pronounced the judgment. Under the circumstances, the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 8. In this view, we find it difficult to sustain the impugned order. Under the circumstances, the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 8. In this view, we find it difficult to sustain the impugned order. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition before the High Court is dismissed, but, with no order as to costs. 9. The learned counsel for Respondent 1, at this stage, submitted that if some plots are available, the case of Respondent 1 may be considered. We do not wish to express anything on this submission. It is up to Respondent 1 to apply and it is for the appellants to consider his application in accordance with law, in case any plot is available with them. Appeal allowed.