JUDGMENT VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 18.8.2000 (Annexure P2), 7.5.2001 (Annexure P4), 3.3.2004 (Annexure P5) and 14.11.2007 (Annexure P7) being illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Haryana Housing Board Act,1971 (for short, `the Act'), as applicable to the Union Territory, Chandigarh, and the settled principles of law as well as natural justice. 2. The petitioner, who was allotted dwelling unit no.4896 in the category of Economically Weaker Section at Maloya Colony, Union Territory, Chandigarh, abused the terms and conditions of the allotment and the following misuser was established:- “1. Unauthorised Karyana shop is running in the illegal construction on Govt. Land. 2. Stair constructed on Govt. Land. 3. Roomhas been constructed in Coiurtyard. 4. At Ist Floor room has been constructed above the room constructed in the court yard.” 3. After issuance of notice to which the petitioner replied, the allotment in his favour was cancelled and the amount deposited by him was forfeited in terms of the conditions of allotment vide order dated 18.8.2000. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was also dismissed by order dated 7.5.2001 (Annexure P4). 4. Intimation of the said dismissal was given to the petitioner through registered post on 9.5.2001. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to vacate the premises vide order dated 4.3.2002. Before the order to vacate the premises was passed, he was given numerous opportunities, i.e., on 27.11.2001, 24.12.2001, 15.1.2002 and 30.1.2002 and ultimately, he was evicted from the premises on 21.8.2002 and the premises were sealed. The petitioner moved an application for stay of the eviction on 7.11.2002 after the premises had already been vacated. 6. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal in which he pleaded that order dated 7.5.2001 and eviction order dated 4.3.2002 and the subsequent eviction on 21.8.2002 were never brought to his notice. The said appeal was dismissed on 3.3.2004 by noticing the aforesaid facts that the petitioner had been duly served with order dated 7.5.2001 through registered post and subsequent notices issued to him to which he did not respond and ultimately the premises were locked and sealed on 21.8.2002. 7. The said appeal was dismissed on 3.3.2004 by noticing the aforesaid facts that the petitioner had been duly served with order dated 7.5.2001 through registered post and subsequent notices issued to him to which he did not respond and ultimately the premises were locked and sealed on 21.8.2002. 7. After the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner preferred another appeal purportedly under Section 54 of the Act before the District Judge, Chandigarh impugning order dated 3.3.2004 which had been passed on his appeal by the competent authority. This appeal before the District Judge was ill-conceived and was dismissed as withdrawn in the year 2004 itself. 8. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, who dismissed the same by holding that the same was barred by time as order dated 3.3.2004 was sought to be assailed before him belatedly without any justifiable reason. 9. The dismissal of the revision petition vide order dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure P7) has resulted in the filing of the present writ petition. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. 11. The prayer made by the petitioner cannot be considered as in the first instance he did not respond to the initial order of cancellation which was passed on 7.5.2001. He, by his callous attitude and an uncaring demeanour, invited the sealing of the premises and his consequential eviction. This order was passed in the year 2002 and thereafter, the petitioner chose to file an appeal which was dismissed in 2004 and for no apparent and justifiable reason, the revision was filed in the year 2007. Apart from the fact that there was no valid reason to prefer the revision petition belatedly, the petitioner did not make any attempt to remove the violations even when the proceedings were pending before the appellate authority or the authorities of the first instance. 12. That being the situation when the petitioner has blatantly violated the terms of the allotment letter and thereafter, did not make any attempt to remove the violations and further slept over his rights, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as being without any merit. Petition dismissed.