JUDGMENT Vijender Jain, C.J. (Oral):- This appeal has been filed by the appellant who is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.3 .2007 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.4514 of 2005. 2. Briefly stating the facts, the respondent no.3 applied for allotment of a plot with the appellant first time in the year 1984. It seems that the appellant was not successful. Another scheme was floated by the appellant in the year 1993 wherein the respondent no.3 applied for allotment of a plot, on the asking of the appellant, who asked the respondent to give his option in case he was still interested in having a plot. He was asked to apply afresh along with an affidavit in terms of Clause 20 stating that he has not acquired any plot under a Govt. Scheme. The whole controversy revolves around the submission of the affidavit by respondent no.3. After waiting for almost nine years since his first attempt to acquire a plot, the respondent no.3 purchased it from open market. In 1993 when respondent no.3 was asked to opt for a plot then the appellant insisted upon him to give an affidavit and respondent no.3 declined, inter-alia, pleading that his affidavit filed at the time of making initial application in 1984 should be taken on record and considered as his affidavit in the present application which was moved in 1993. Thereafter he was allotted a plot and respondent no.3 filed an affidavit disclosing, inter-alia, that he has obtained a plot in Mohali from private persons in the open market. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that once the requirement was to file an affidavit pursuant to the scheme of 1993, non-filing of such affidavit would render respondentno.3 ineligible and therefore the allotment made in favour of respondent no.3 was cancelled rightly on 22.4.1996. The Special Secretary to Government of Punjab could not have directed the appellant for restoration of plot which was cancelled earlier, while exercising his powers of revision. 4. The order of the Special Secretary to Government of Punjab dated 17.10.2003 was assailed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. 5. The Special Secretary to Government of Punjab could not have directed the appellant for restoration of plot which was cancelled earlier, while exercising his powers of revision. 4. The order of the Special Secretary to Government of Punjab dated 17.10.2003 was assailed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. 5. Another contention raised before the learned Single Judge by the appellant was that the Special Secretary to Government of Punjab could not have passed the subsequent order in revision which was passed on 24.5.2004, inter-alia, directing that the period from 14.8.1995 to 19.2.2004 i.e. period of cancellation of the allotment and restoration of the plot should be treated as frozen period for all purposes i.e. no interest/penalty or non-construction fee should be levied for this period and the appellant cannot be held liable for this period of litigation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that there was no provision for review and, therefore, the learned Single Judge lost sight of the fact that in the absence of any specific provision regarding review, the order of the Government of Punjab reviewing its earlier order could not have been upheld by the learned Single Judge. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant relied upon State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala etc. AIR 1979 SC 87. 7. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant. 8. The whole emphasis of the arguments of the counsel for the appellant is without any basis. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had applied in 1993 pursuant to an option which was to be exercised at the behest of the appellant for making an application for allotment of a plot. As a matter of fact, if the appellant would have been little careful in interpreting clause 20 of the stipulation of the terms for allotment, the situation would not have reached this far. 9. Annexure P-4 is a latter from the appellant itself written to respondent no.3. Clause 20 of the said letter speaks as follows:- “An affidavit may also be sent that you have no plot or House allotted by any Govt. agency which you might have been sold.” 10. A perusal of the aforesaid specific clause shows that it deals only with acquisition of a plot or a house from a Govt. Clause 20 of the said letter speaks as follows:- “An affidavit may also be sent that you have no plot or House allotted by any Govt. agency which you might have been sold.” 10. A perusal of the aforesaid specific clause shows that it deals only with acquisition of a plot or a house from a Govt. agency and therefore interpretation on the part of the appellant that respondent no.3 was ineligible was misplaced. As a matter of fact, after an additional affidavit was given by respondent no.3 on 18.9.1995 that he has purchased a plot from private persons, the matter should have been allowed to rest by the appellant there and then and the allotment ought to have been made to the respondent no.3. Once the respondent no.3 disclosed that he has obtained a plot from the private sources in 1995, the appellant had no business not to allot a plot to respondent no.3 by completely misreading Clause 20. And in any case the appellant was the one who invited the respondent no.3 to apply afresh even though he was unsuccessful in 1984. 11. With regard to the order passed by respondent no.1; as a matter of fact, it was done after taking into consideration the said facts and in view of the powers conferred under the Act permitting a revision against the order made by the Chief Administrator under Section 45 (6 and 7) of the Punjab Regional Town Planning & Development Act, 1995. The power was rightly exercised by restoring the allotment of plot to respondent no.3. If the allotment would not have been restored that would amounted to miscarriage of justice. We also find no merit in the argument that the subsequent order passed by the respondent no. 1 on 24.5.2004 was an order for review. If the revisional authority while exercising its jurisdiction has left a certain lacuna in the order, a supplementary clarificatory order can be passed by such an authority to bring justice to the applicant. The authority cited by the appellant is of no assistance as it deals with powers of a Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under the criminal law in which review is expressly barred. The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority is a statutory body. If it was aggrieved by the order passed by the Govt. The authority cited by the appellant is of no assistance as it deals with powers of a Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under the criminal law in which review is expressly barred. The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority is a statutory body. If it was aggrieved by the order passed by the Govt. it could have had recourse in law by challenging the said order at that point of time, but it accepted it and asked the respondent no.3 to deposit the amount which was due. Therefore, we find no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. --------------------