Judgment 1. The petitioner who is a senior citizen Article 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing order Annexures P-7 dated 14-12-1993, P-11 dated 9-1-1995 and P-13 dated 28-4-1995 which have resulted into cancellation of allotment of Flat No. 5156/1 Category-I at Manimajra under the Self-Financing Scheme, 1989. An alternate prayer has also been made to the effect that a direction be issued to respondent-Board to refund the amount of Rs. 20,000.00 initially deposited by the petitioner on 26-6-1989 along with the interest at the rate of 18% from the date of deposit till the date of refund. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner who had retired as Engineer-in-Chief from the Punjab State Electricity Board on 31-5-1987, applied for a flat of category-I in Self Financing Housing Scheme in response to an advertisement and Brochure issued by the respondent-Board (Annexure P-I). According to the terms and conditions of the brochure, the mode of allotment was by a draw of lots if the number of applications received exceeded the number of flats and waiting list was to be prepared to the extent of 10% of the total number of flats. The initial deposit to the unsuccessful applicant was to be refunded in full without interest. The allotment was to be subject to the provision of Haryana Housing Board Act 1971 as applicable to U.T., Chandigarh and the Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979 and the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and the rules and regulations made thereunder. The mode of payment was also prescribed which reads as under :- "MODE OF PAYMENT : The applicant shall pay the tentative price as under :- Category-I Category-II Initial deposit Rs. 20,000.00 Rs. 15,000.00 At the time of Registration i.e. within 30 days of the issue of acceptance-cum-demand letter. Three half-yearly instalments, first Instalment being payable on completion of 6 months from the date of issue of acceptance-cum-demand letter Rs. 60,000.00 Rs. 45,000.00 i) First instalment Rs. 1.00 lac Rs. 75,000.00 ii) Second instalment Rs. 1.00 lac Rs. 75,000.00 iii) Third instalment Rs. 80,000.00 Rs. 60,000.00 At the time of possession Balance as per price finally fixed. The exact price (consideration money) of the flat shall be worked out at the time of allotment after the flats are completed. 60,000.00 Rs. 45,000.00 i) First instalment Rs. 1.00 lac Rs. 75,000.00 ii) Second instalment Rs. 1.00 lac Rs. 75,000.00 iii) Third instalment Rs. 80,000.00 Rs. 60,000.00 At the time of possession Balance as per price finally fixed. The exact price (consideration money) of the flat shall be worked out at the time of allotment after the flats are completed. The price can be increased due to variation in plinth area, scope of work, change in specifications and deign, increase in cost of materials and labour, cost of land etc. or due to any other reason and the same shall be binding upon the allottee." 3 The brouchre also laid down certain other conditions of eligibility. The applicant was required to be such a person who or his wife/her husband or any of his/her dependent relations including unmarried children did not own a free-hold or lease-hold or on hire-purchase basis a residential plot/house in the Union Territory of Chandigarh or in either of the Urban Estates of Mohali and Panchkula. It further stated that persons who have acquired a house/residential site anywhere in India through Government/Semi-Government/Municipal Committee/Corporation Improvement Trust/Notified Area Committee at concessional rates i.e. at reserve/fixed price, in their names or in the names of dependent members of their families, were not eligible for allotment under the Self Financing Housing Scheme. 4. The petitioner duly applied on 26-6-1989 and deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 as the initial deposit required by the brochure. There were some queries raised by the respondent Board which were answered by the petitioner on 6-11-1989 (Annexure P-3) and on 1-11-1990 (Annexure P-5). However, a query with regard to the status of the petitioner on account of a flat in the name of his wife Smt. Shashi Sarwal namely S.F.S. Flat No. 6, Pocket-A in Mount Kailash, Delhi remained unresolved till the end. However the name of the petitioner was provisionally put in the draw of lots held on 29-11-1989 and he succeeded. The aforementioned fact was communicated to the petitioner by the respondent-Board on 14-12-1993 (Annexure P-7) and a demand of Rupees 3.40 lac was raised and the amount was to be deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of the issuance of the letter. The aforementioned fact was communicated to the petitioner by the respondent-Board on 14-12-1993 (Annexure P-7) and a demand of Rupees 3.40 lac was raised and the amount was to be deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of the issuance of the letter. A further query was raised that the eligibility of the petitioner was yet to be determined and in that regard the certified copy of Income-tax returns and attested copy of lease deed/registration deed in respect of flat at Delhi were required to be furnished. The letter Annexure P-7 stated that the registration is to be regulated strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the brochure and the provisions of Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979. The aforementioned letter was replied to by the petitioner by raising two pleas; firstly that the eligibility of the petitioner should be determined and secondly the schedule of payment given in the brochure should be adhered to because he was unable to pay the huge amount of Rs. 3,40,000.00 . The respondent-Board still proceeded further with the determination of the allotment of specific flat and the floor No. out of the successful allottees on the basis of draw of lots held on 29-11-1989. The name of the petitioner was again included provisionally in that list and he was again successful in respect of Flat No. 5156/1 against the Registration No. 140. However, as the petitioner was not able to deposit the demanded amount of Rs. 3,40,000.00 , a Show Cause Notice was issued to him on 11-11-1994 for cancellation of Registration/Allocation of the flat. Eventually the order of cancellation was passed on 9-1-1995 (Annexure P-11) by the respondent-Board. Thereafter, the petitioner requested for withdrawal of the order of cancellation on the ground that the amount of Rs. 3,40,000.00 demanded from the petitioner was not possible to be paid in lump-sum and he has requested for instalments as per schedule. The request was also rejected on 28-4-1995 (Annexure P-13). 5. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 28-4-1995 has filed the instant petition. 3,40,000.00 demanded from the petitioner was not possible to be paid in lump-sum and he has requested for instalments as per schedule. The request was also rejected on 28-4-1995 (Annexure P-13). 5. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 28-4-1995 has filed the instant petition. The matter came up before the Division Bench on 15-2-1996 and the following order was passed :- "We adjourn this case to 25-3-1996 to enable the respondent to consider the eligibility of the petitioner on the basis of the documents submitted by the petitioner, which may include the documents submitted even after the issuance of the show cause Notice/cancellation of allotment. Let this exercise be done before the next date of hearing and the order in that regard be placed on record. A copy of this order, attested by the Court Secretary, be given to the learned counsel for respondent for compliance." 6. Mr. Naresh Parbhakar, learned counsel for the respondent-Board has stated that the aforementioned order was complied with and on 20-3-1996 the respondent-Board had found that the petitioner was not eligible on account of the cancellation of allotment as per order dated 9-1-1995 (Annexure P-11). 7. In the written statement the stand taken by the respondent-board is that the petitioner was not eligible on account of the allotment of a flat to his wife by D.D.A. at Delhi and that the papers concerning the eligibility were submitted after the order of cancellation was issued. The respondent-board has further asserted that the petitioner in any case failed to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,40,000.00 as per demand raised by the respondent-board for more than one year. It is claimed that the forfeiture clause would apply to the petitioner and he is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 23,250.00 . Accordingly a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 having already been deposited Rs. 3,250.00 is recoverable. 8. Mr. R. S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two-fold submissions before me : (A) That the demand of Rs. 3,40,000.00 raised by the respondent-board flagrantly violated the provisions of Brochure (P-1) in respect of the mode of payment. Learned counsel has also argued that the dispute regarding eligibility of the petitioner was illegally kept pending for such a long period despite repeated requests made by him. 3,40,000.00 raised by the respondent-board flagrantly violated the provisions of Brochure (P-1) in respect of the mode of payment. Learned counsel has also argued that the dispute regarding eligibility of the petitioner was illegally kept pending for such a long period despite repeated requests made by him. The petitioner should have been told at the outset that he was not eligible which is the stand now taken in the written statement. (B) That if the flat No. 5156/1 has been allotted to someone else then he would either be given alternate plot or at least his initial amount of Rs. 20,000.00 be refunded with interest which is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Brochure. 9. Mr. Naresh Parbhakar, learned counsel for the respondent-Board has argued that the Brochure (Annexure P-1) was merely an invitation to offer and no offer has been made by the respondent-Board. According to the learned counsel the offer could be considered to be made only when the petitioner had succeeded in draw of lots and therefore no concluded contract between the parties came into existence which might be alleged to be violated because the petitioner failed to accept the offer made by the respondent. The learned counsel has also argued that the demand raised for the amount Rs. 3,40,000.00 has been accepted by everyone and therefore, it was in the general interest of the allottees that the amount of Rs. 3,40,000.00 was deposited because adhering to the schedule would have resulted into incurring of huge amount of interest by an allottee. The learned counsel has also submitted that as the flats were ready for possession delaying the delivery of possession in accordance with the schedule of payment would have resulted in incurring of unnecessary expenditure on the Board as well a on the petitioner. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the respondent-Board could not have compelled the petitioner to deposit the whole amount of Rs. 3,40,000.00 and kept the issue of eligibility pending for such a long time. After the petitioner has been found to be ineligible by the Board then his initial amount of Rs. 20,000.00 should have been refunded to him. The mode of payment prescribed in the Brochure (Annexure P-I) has also not been adhered to which was the basis for the petitioner to move an application for allotment. After the petitioner has been found to be ineligible by the Board then his initial amount of Rs. 20,000.00 should have been refunded to him. The mode of payment prescribed in the Brochure (Annexure P-I) has also not been adhered to which was the basis for the petitioner to move an application for allotment. In a given case a prospective allottee would plan his budget and would know the flow of income and cash. Accordingly, such a prospective allottee would not plan to apply for the allotment of a flat in a Government scheme, had it been disclosed in the Brochure that he might have to pay a lump-sum amount. It is thus evident that terms and conditions incorporated in the brochure for allotment of a flat have not been adhered to by the respondent Board and the schedule of payment was shelved by requiring the petitioner to pay the whole amount of Rs. 3,60,000.00 in lump sum. It is also established on record that the respondent-Board eventually did not find the petitioner eligible on account of the fact that his wife had already been allotted a flat at Delhi. If this was the situation and the thinking of the respondent-Board then the petitioner was entitled to the refund of earnest money of Rs. 20,000.00 without any provisional consideration of his application for allotment of flat. However, the respondent-Board retained the earnest money amounting of Rupees 20,000.00 belonging to the petitioner by keeping the issue of his eligibility pending and also by provisionally considering his application for allotment of flat. When he succeeded a new condition to make lump sum payment was imposed which the petitioner was unable to abide on account of paucity of funds. Therefore, there is no justification for the respondent-Board to invoke forfeiture clause against the petitioner. In fact, the respondent Board has used the amount of Rs. 20,000.00 for all this period without any justification. The prayer of the petitioner for allotment of either the same flat or an alternative accommodation cannot be accepted because the petitioner has been found ineligible on account of the fact that his wife had already been allotted a flat at Delhi. In any case, no flat in the self-financing scheme is available. Therefore, his prayer for allotment of flat cannot be accepted. 11. In any case, no flat in the self-financing scheme is available. Therefore, his prayer for allotment of flat cannot be accepted. 11. In view of the above, the impugned orders Annexure P-7 dated 14-12-1993, Annexure P-11 dated 9-1-1995 and Annexure P-13 dated 28-4-1995 are set aside and the respondent-Board is directed to refund the earnest money of Rs. 20,000 to the petitioner along with simple interest @ 5 per cent p.a. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.