( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 23. 02. 2007 passed by the respondent no. 2, by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected. Petitioner has been allotted a land on lease by the respondent no. 2 vide agreement dated 26. 02. 2001 for a period of 90 years on the terms and conditions specified in the lease deed. As per clause 8 of the lease deed, petitioner has to start the construction within six months from the date of execution of lease deed or due date of lease deed, whichever is earlier and will construct a minimum of area as per by-laws of the authority as applicable for building and put the same in operation as per plans approved by lessor, within three years from the date of execution of lease deed or due date of lease deed, whichever is earlier and shall obtain the completion certificate from the completion cell. Admittedly, petitioner could not comply with the aforesaid conditions mentioned in clause 8 of lease deed. Respondent no. 2 for non-compliance of the condition no. 8 of the lease deed referred hereinabove cancelled the allotment vide order dated 30. 11. 2006. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70132 of 2006. This Court vide order dated 22. 12. 2006 disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the petitioner to approach the respondent by filing the representation and the respondent was further directed to decide the same. In pursuance thereof, impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner has been passed. Heard Sri Dhruv Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to acute slump in market during the last few years and the consequent acute liquidity crunch faced by the petitioner, the construction could not be undertaken on the plot in dispute. However, he submitted that they are ready to raise the construction and thus, earlier order dated 30. 11. 2006 be set aside and the lease deed may be restored. He submitted that in the case of Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. However, he submitted that they are ready to raise the construction and thus, earlier order dated 30. 11. 2006 be set aside and the lease deed may be restored. He submitted that in the case of Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. U. T. , Chandigarh and others, reported in (2004) 2 SCC, 130, Apex Court held that the cancellation of the allotment is too harsh punishment and it should not be imposed unless there are compelling circumstances. ( 3 ) SRI Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that due to the non-compliance of the condition no. 8 of the agreement, lease deed has been cancelled vide order dated 30. 11. 20066. He submitted that even the petitioner could not apply for the extension of time as provided under clause 9 of the lease deed. He further submitted that to verify the plea of the petitioner about the financial condition, petitioner was required to file balance-sheet for the last five years but the petitioner failed to submit the balance-sheet and failed to substantiate its claim. Thus, order passed by the respondent no. 2 is wholly justified. He submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. U. T. , Chandigarh and others (Surpa) is not applicable. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the respondent no. 2 ( 4 ) IN the case of Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. U. T. , Chandigarh and others (Supra), Apex Court held as follows: "we may, however, hasten to add that we do not to lay down a law that the statutory right conferring the right of the respondent should never be restored to. We have merely laid down the principle giving some illustrations where it may not be used. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that if the intention of the allottee is dishonest or with an ill motive and if the allottee does not make any payment in terms of the allotment or the statute with a dishonest view of any dishonest motive then Section 8-A can be taken recourse to. " ( 5 ) IN the present case, petitioner was allotted the land in February, 2001 and the possession was given on 13. 03. " ( 5 ) IN the present case, petitioner was allotted the land in February, 2001 and the possession was given on 13. 03. 2001, but the petitioner could not start the construction within three years what to say within six months as provided in clause 8 of the lease deed. Petitioner has not even moved any application for the extension of time as provided in clause 9 of lease deed. Thus, the respondent has no option except to cancel the lease deed vide order dated 30. 11. 2006. Even during the course of hearing on the representation filed by the petitioner, petitioner could not produce the balance-sheet of the last five years to substantiate its claim, which was required by the respondent no. 2. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner intention was dishonest and not bonafide. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise our extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. .