JUDGMENT I. MAHANTY, J. : The petitioner in this writ petition has sought to challenge a clause of “deemed cancellation” contained in the Notice No.490 dated 21.2.2006 (Annexure-6) issued by the Executive Officer, Talcher Municipality, Talcher (O.P. No.2) calling upon the petitioner to take possession of Shop room No.20 in new Municipal Market at Hatatota, Talcher, within fifteen days failing which it shall be deemed that the petitioner is not willing to accept the allotment of shop room and therefore, the same will be cancelled. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that Pursuant to Notice No.1 dated 1.1.2002, Talcher Municipality, Talcher invited applications from the public for allotment of shop rooms near Hatatota (Old Weekly Market) as per the terms and conditions prepared by Talcher Municipality. The terms and conditions of the Scheme are that the allotment of shop room will be made on the “first come and first serve” basis, and the applicant has to deposit 50% of the Security amount for the shop room applied for as mentioned in the Schedule No.11 of the Scheme within fifteen days from the date of Notification and the balance 50% of Securi¬ty amount shall be deposited by the allottee within forty-five days from the date of provisional allotment. It is stipulated in the said Scheme that in the event the allottee fails to deposit the balance security amount within the stipulated date the allot¬ment shall stand cancelled. As per the Scheme, the allotment of shop room shall be made provisionally and the final allotment will be made on completion of the construction work of the build¬ing. It is further stipulated that rent shall be charged from the date of final allotment. As per the Scheme 50% of the security amount will be adjusted towards shop room rent and the rest 50% of the Security deposit shall be kept with the Municipality as security, which will be refunded to the allottee at the time of vacation of shop room. 3. In terms of the aforesaid notice and stipulation of the Scheme, the petitioner had applied for a shop room of size 15' x 20' (indicated at Sl.10 of the Schedule at Clause-11 of the notice) against which security deposit was fixed at Rs.1,28,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty-eight thousand). 3. In terms of the aforesaid notice and stipulation of the Scheme, the petitioner had applied for a shop room of size 15' x 20' (indicated at Sl.10 of the Schedule at Clause-11 of the notice) against which security deposit was fixed at Rs.1,28,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty-eight thousand). Thereafter the petition¬er made an application dated 24.1.2002 enclosing a Bank Draft of Rs.64,000/- (Rupees sixty-four thousand) drawn in favour of the Executive Officer, Talcher Municipality, Talcher (O.P. No.2) vide Annexure-2 series. 4. Pursuant to the petitioner’s application, opposite party No.2 vide his letter No.1874 dated 29.6.2002 (Annexure-3) informed the petitioner that the shop room applied for by him has been provisionally allotted in his favour and the allotment letter will be issued to him after deposit of the second instalment, i.e., Rs.64,000/- (Rupees sixty-four thousand). In the said letter it has been stipulated that the shop room shall be handed over to the petitioner after completion of the building. The petitioner thereafter deposited the second instalment of Rs.64,000/- (Rupees sixty-four thousand) by way of Bank Drafts in favour of the opposite party No.2 and due receipt of the same was issued by the opposite party No.2 vide receipt dated 11.7.2002 (Annexure-4). After deposit of the second instalment, opposite party No.2 has issued the allotment letter No.2076 dated 17.7.2002 (Annexure-5) allotting the newly constructed shop room No.20 of size 15' x 20' in favour of the petitioner at Hatatota Market indicating therein that the shop room will be handed over after finishing of the said shop room. 5. After deposit of the second instalment, opposite party No.2 has issued the allotment letter No.2076 dated 17.7.2002 (Annexure-5) allotting the newly constructed shop room No.20 of size 15' x 20' in favour of the petitioner at Hatatota Market indicating therein that the shop room will be handed over after finishing of the said shop room. 5. It is apparent that there was delay of nearly 4 (four) years in completion of the shop room in question, and it is averred by the petitioner that a notice bearing No.490 dated 21.2.2006 (Annexure-6) impugned in this writ application was issued to him by the opposite party No.2 stating therein that despite Municipality Office Notice No.199 dated 25.1.2006, the shop room which has been allotted in favour of the petitioner has not been accepted and accordingly the petitioner was called upon to accept the said allotment letter within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice failing which it would be deemed that the petitioner is not willing to accept the allotment and where-after the allotment made in favour of the petitioner would be cancelled and after such cancellation the shop room would be free for allotment in favour of third party. 6. The petitioner in the writ petition further averred that he had never received the notice dated 21.2.2006 as he was out of the State on medical advice and after returning back to the State he could know regarding the aforesaid notice and imme¬diately issued his letter dated 31.3.2006 addressed to the Execu¬tive Officer, Talcher Municipality (O.P. No.2) indicating the reasons for his delay as well as requested to hand over the possession of the shop premises since he has complied all the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Scheme for allotment of shop room. The petitioner further averred that he has neither received the office Notice No.199 dated 25.1.2006 nor aware of the contents of the said letter. It is further averred by the petitioner that since opposite parties 1 and 2 did not respond to his letter dated 31.3.2006, once again he addressed a letter dated 9.6.2006 to opposite party No.2 requesting him for delivery of possession of the shop room in question. It is further averred by the petitioner that since opposite parties 1 and 2 did not respond to his letter dated 31.3.2006, once again he addressed a letter dated 9.6.2006 to opposite party No.2 requesting him for delivery of possession of the shop room in question. Thereafter the peti¬tioner not having received any response from Opp.party No.2 to his request under his letter dated 9.6.2006, on query the peti¬tioner came to know that some other person might be delivered with the possession of the self-same shop room. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 30th August, 2006. 7. This matter was listed before this Court on 4.9.2006 whereby notice was issued to the opposite parties by special messenger and the opposite parties were directed not to allot Shop Room No.20 in New Municipality Market, Talcher to any other person without leave of this Court. 8. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed their counter affidavit on 19.11.2006 stating therein that the notice of the Hon’ble Court in this writ petition along with the copy of the interim order dated 4.9.2006 through special messenger were received by the opposite parties on 12.9.2006, but before that date, the allotment and possession of the shop room No.20 has already been given in favour of Smt. Anupama Sahu (O.P. No.3). Opposite parties 1 and 2 further averred that since the petitioner neither responded to the notice dated 25.1.2006 within the stipulated period nor the subsequent notice dated 21.2.2006, the allotment of the shop room in question was liable for cancel¬lation and it would be free for allotment in favour of any other interested person because “the main purpose of the Municipality was to see that all the shop rooms are opened uniformly and fetch rent so as to enrich the revenue of the Municipality and also cater the needs of the public at large.” It is further averred in the Counter affidavit that : “since as per section 295 of the Orissa Municipal Act, it is also one of the primary duty of the Municipality to provide market to the public. During such time one Smt. Anupama Sahoo made an application dated 8.3.2006 to the Executive Officer, Talcher Municipality- O.P. No.2 stating to have known that the shop room No.20 is lying vacant and the same may be considered to be allotted in her favour. The said application of Smt. Sahoo was received in the office of the Opposite parties 1 and 2 on 9.3.2006.” “The opposite party No.2 had put up the note and regarding the application to have been so received for allotment and sought for necessary orders from the Chair-Person on 10.3.2006. The Chair-Person also approved such proposal on 10.3.2006 consequent¬ly permitted to re-allot the shop room in favour of Smt. Anupama Sahoo was also asked to deposit a sum of Rs.100/- towards the application fee who deposited the same on 10.3.2006 and obtained receipt thereof vide Annexure B/3 to the petition for interven¬tion. xx xx xx xx xx. “Said Smt. Anupama Sahoo was asked to deposit at a time a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty-eight thousand) for obtaining allotment of shop room No.20, who also deposited the said money with the opposite parties 1 and 2 on 10.3.2006”. xx xx xx xx xx xx. “Thereafter said Smt. Anupama Sahoo, Opposite party No.3 was given the allotment order No.988 dated 13.3.2006 vide Annexure-D/3 to the petition for interven¬tion and an agreement to that effect vide Annexure-E/3 to such intervention was also executed for a period from 1.4.2006 till 31.3.2007, i.e. for twelve months in between the Municipality and Smt. Anupama Sahoo as Licensor and the Licensee for a sum of Rs.900/- per month as license fee.” It is further averred by the opposite parties 1 and 2 that the said agreement was made by the Stamp paper purchased by Anupama Sahoo, Opp.party No.3 on 18.3.2006. After execution of the said agreement opposite party No.3 took over possession of the said shop room and also obtained permission vide Annexure-F/3 to the petition for intervention for remodelling the floor with marbles with his own costs with a stipulation that no claim tow¬ards the costs would be made against the Municipality in future. 9. After execution of the said agreement opposite party No.3 took over possession of the said shop room and also obtained permission vide Annexure-F/3 to the petition for intervention for remodelling the floor with marbles with his own costs with a stipulation that no claim tow¬ards the costs would be made against the Municipality in future. 9. Smt. Anupama Sahoo was impleaded as Opp.party No.3 in the present writ petition and has also filed an intervention application which has been treated as counter affidavit to the present writ petition, inter alia, reiterating the steps taken by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and praying that she should not be put to loss of expenses incurred by her in furnishing the shop room. 10. In view of the rival averments noted here in above what is extremely shocking is the manner in which a public statutory authority such as, the Municipality and its Executive Officer have acted in the allotment made in favour of Smt.Anupama Sahoo, O.P. No.3. It is admitted by both the parties to the litigation that last Notice dated 21.2.2006 was sent by the Municipality by Registered post with A.D. in which fifteen days time from the date of said notice was granted to the petitioner to take posses¬sion of the shop room. Thereafter it is the admitted case of the opposite parties that exactly fifteen days after the date of the notice, Anupama Sahoo made an application on 8.3.2006 for allot¬ment of the said shop room in her favour, without any public notice intimating existence of vacancy. Immediately the Executive Officer-O.P. No.2 on 10.3.2006 put up the note before the Chair-Person regarding the application said to have been received from Anupama Sahoo and sought for necessary order for allotment. It is also admitted that the Chair-Person approved such proposal and consequently permitted to re-allot the shop room in favour of Smt. Anupama Sahoo on the self same day, i.e., 10.3.2006. It is further admitted that Smt. Anupama Sahoo was also asked to depos¬it a sum of Rs.100/- towards the application fee on 10.3.2006 it¬self. It is further admitted that no advertisement nor public notice was ever made regarding the vacancy of the shop room and the “application” of Smt. Anupama Sahoo was entertained the “application fee” was deposited on the self day. It is further admitted that no advertisement nor public notice was ever made regarding the vacancy of the shop room and the “application” of Smt. Anupama Sahoo was entertained the “application fee” was deposited on the self day. From the above it is evident that the entire exercise of cancellation of the petitioner’s shop/allotment to O.P. No.3 was made in haste and only to show undue favour to Opp.party No.3. It is further evident from the above that on the same date i.e., on 10.3.2006 Smt. Anupama Sahoo was asked to deposit at a time a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- who also deposited the same with the opposite parties 1 and 2 and money receipt was duly issued and three days thereafter, i.e., on 13.3.2006 allotment order No.988 dated 13.3.2006 was issued in favour of Smt. Anupama Sahoo, Opp.Party No.3 and an agreement was duly executed between the Executive Officer, Talcher Municipality, O.P.No.2 and Smt. Anupa¬ma Sahoo, O.P. No.3 for the period covering from 1.4.2006 till 31.3.2007. 11. The counter affidavit clearly spells out complete disregard to the rule of law as well as exhibits clear favouritism at the cost of the public exchequer. At the out set we are con¬strained to take notice of the manner in which both, the Execu¬tive Officer and Chair-Person of the Municipality acted in the matter of allotment of shop room in favour of Smt. Anupama Sahoo. 12. The next aspect we need to deal with is the “cancella¬tion of allotment” made in favour of the petitioner. In this respect the stand taken by opposite parties 1 and 2 is that the main purpose of the Municipality was to see that all the shop rooms are uniformly opened with their respective business and fetch the rent to enrich the revenue of the Municipality. The action of opposite parties 1 and 2 is purely indefensible. The petitioner in this writ petition had made an application for a shop room pursuant to a public notice issued by Talcher Municipality under the scheme framed by them for allot¬ment of shop rooms. Therefore, all allotments are to be covered under the terms and conditions of the Scheme itself. The peti¬tioner had deposited Rs.1,28,000/- in two equal instalments on 24.2002 and 11.7.2002 and has waited for more than four years for completion of the building. Therefore, all allotments are to be covered under the terms and conditions of the Scheme itself. The peti¬tioner had deposited Rs.1,28,000/- in two equal instalments on 24.2002 and 11.7.2002 and has waited for more than four years for completion of the building. In the present case even if the petitioner did not respond to the notice of the Municipality within the period stipulated in their notice dated 25.2.2006, still the Municipality did not suffer any financial loss, inas¬much as, in terms of Clause-8 of the terms and conditions of the Scheme, 50% of the security was kept with the Municipality for being adjusted towards rent of the shop room. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioner did not take possession of the allotted shop room within the period stipulated, the Municipality would have had the authority for settlement of their claim of rent against the 50% of the security which was lying with them for being adjusted towards rent of the petitioner’s shop room. Therefore, on the plea of financial exigency, cancellation of allotment of the shop room does not arise and cannot be justified in law. 13. As per the terms and conditions of the Scheme, cancellation of allotment of shop room is contemplated only in a case when the applicant fails to deposit the balance security within the stipulated period and it is only in such an event, the allotment could stand cancelled. Admittedly, this is not the basis on which the opposite parties 1 and 2 in the present case have sought to justify their action. On the contrary, the oppo¬site parties 1 and 2 have admitted to have received the “full security amount” from the petitioner and that to within the stipulated period. Therefore, we are of the view that the reason advanced by opposite parties 1 and 2 to try and justify the order of cancellation is wholly illegal, and we therefore quash the Notice dated 21.2.2006 vide Annexure-6 to the extent of the conditions stipulated therein for “deemed cancellation”. 14. The learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.3 while supporting the stand of opposite parties 1 and 2, alterna¬tively prayed that in the event the writ petition is allowed, the Court may grant one month time for vacation of the shop room in question. 15. 14. The learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.3 while supporting the stand of opposite parties 1 and 2, alterna¬tively prayed that in the event the writ petition is allowed, the Court may grant one month time for vacation of the shop room in question. 15. In the light of the aforesaid findings, the writ peti¬tion is allowed with the following directions :- (a) The Executive Officer, Talcher Municipality-O.P. No.2 is directed to evict opposite party No.3 from shop room No.20 in Hatatota New Municipal Market within a period of one month from today and hand over the said shop room to the petitioner imme¬diately thereafter. (b) Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are further directed to charge the monthly rent of the shop room from the petitioner only from the date of handing over possession of the shop room. (c) In the event opposite party No.3 suffers any financial loss on account of the action of the opposite parties 1 and 2, it is open to her to initiate appropriate civil proceeding, if so ad¬vised. B. P. DAS, J. I agree Petition allowed.