( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29th December, 2006 that has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the noida) and for a direction upon the respondents to allot a flat to the petitioners on the ground floor on the price mentioned in the brochure. ( 2 ) AN advertisement was issued by the NOIDA for allotment of flats in the year 2002. Both the petitioners jointly submitted an application for allotment of HIG Flat in Sector 105 on the ground floor. The tentative cost of the flat mentioned in the brochure for the ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor was as follows :- 1. Ground Floor Rs. 18,91,500. 00 2. First Floor Rs. 18,32,100. 00 3. Second Floor Rs. 17,52,900. 00 4. Third Floor Rs. 16,93,500. 00 NOIDA by its letter dated 30th April, 2003 informed the petitioners that one HIG flat in Sector 105 had been allotted to them and the floorwise tentative cost was also indicated. It was also mentioned that the petitioners should deposit the allotment money within 30 days and that the floor on which the flat would be allotted was yet to be decided. The balance amount was required to be paid within 30 days of draw of lots after allotment of the flat on the specific floor. The petitioners deposited an amount of Rs. 17,92,000. 00 under the belief that they will get a flat on the ground floor. NOIDA by the letter dated 25th October, 2005 informed the petitioners that they had been allotted Flat No. 123-D in Pocket c Sector 105 NOIDA on the basis of draw on the third floor and by its letter dated 25th July, 2006 also informed the petitioners that the cost of the flat on the third floor would be Rs. 23,37,000. 00 and, therefore, the petitioners were required to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 6,43,500. 00 within thirty days from the receipt of the letter. ( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 53805 of 2006 which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 26. 9. 2006 with a direction to NOIDA to decide the representation. 6,43,500. 00 within thirty days from the receipt of the letter. ( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 53805 of 2006 which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 26. 9. 2006 with a direction to NOIDA to decide the representation. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order, the Chief Executive Officer rejected the representation filed by the petitioners by detailed order dated 29th December, 2006. It is this order which is sought to be quashed. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. P. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the petitioners should have been allotted a flat on the ground floor and not on the third floor. We do not find any merit in this submission as the floor on which the flat was to be allotted was to be determined on the basis of draw of lots. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners then submitted that NOIDA has arbitrarily increased the cost of flat on the third floor from Rs. 16,93,500. 00 to Rs. 23,37,000. 00 and in support of his contention he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur Development Authority Vs. Smt. Sheela Devi and Ors. etc. , 2004 (1) AWC 739. ( 6 ) A perusal of the terms and conditions contained in the brochure issued to the petitioners clearly indicates that the cost of flats was only tentative and the payment would have to be made on the basis of the actual cost to be determined. This is what had also been indicated to the petitioners by the letter dated 30th April, 2003. The actual cost at the time of allotment was subsequently indicated to the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, cannot insist that they would pay the same tentative amount as was indicated to them in the brochure. Reliance placed upon the decision in the case of Kanpur Development Authority (supra) is misplaced as the increase of price by the Development Authority in the said case ran contrary to the terms mentioned in the brochure. The petitioners, therefore, cannot insist that they would pay the same tentative amount as was indicated to them in the brochure. Reliance placed upon the decision in the case of Kanpur Development Authority (supra) is misplaced as the increase of price by the Development Authority in the said case ran contrary to the terms mentioned in the brochure. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any clause contained in the brochure to show that the price fixed by the Development Authority was contrary to the terms contained in the brochure. This apart, the difference between the final cost and the tentative cost is not so alarmingly disproportionate as in the case of the Kanpur Development Authority (supra) that any interference is required. ( 7 ) WE, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order rejecting the representation filed by the petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. .