JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Chetan Chatterji, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Arjun Singhal appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned Counsel for parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner was allotted C type plot No. 686 by the respondents-Saharanpur Development Authority vide order dated 5.5.2006. The said allotment was initially made in favour of petitioner after the petitioner had completed all the necessary formalities. As per the terms of allotment, the petitioner was required to deposit a total sum of Rs. 93,500/- for the said plot. The said amount was to be deposited in twelve easy quarterly installments, payable by 30.9.2008. The petitioner paid six installments but there was some default of payment of four installments. The installments so fixed were ranging around 6,000/- to 7000/-, to be paid quarterly. On such default, the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled by the order dated 26.3.2008. In the said order, a condition was imposed that in case if the petitioner so wishes, then he may pay the price of the plot at enhanced rates within fifteen days and get his allotment regularized. It is this order dated 26.3.2008, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though there was some default in payment of certain installments but prior to the passing of impugned order, the petitioner had got prepared a bank draft dated 19.3.2008 for Rs. 25,350/-, which was deposited with the respondents-Development Authority. After including the said amount of Rs. 25,350/- the total amount paid by the petitioner comes to Rs. 89,511/-, as against the total amount payable by 30.9.2008, which was Rs. 93,500/-. 4. Sri Singhal contends that as per the terms of allotment order, any default of payment by three months would warrant cancellation of the allotment and as such the impugned order is fully justified and is in terms of the allotment order. 5. Be that as it may, the respondents do not dispute that the last installment was to be paid by 30th September, 2008, and the impugned order is of 5.5.2008. The bank draft for a sum of Rs. 5. Be that as it may, the respondents do not dispute that the last installment was to be paid by 30th September, 2008, and the impugned order is of 5.5.2008. The bank draft for a sum of Rs. 25,350/- (which according to the respondents was tendered to them but they refused to accept) had been prepared a week prior to the passing of the impugned order. The Development Authorities are instrumentalities of the State and as a model State, they are expected to act fairly and not like profit making business companies or builders. The purpose for establishment of Development Authorities is to provide housing facilities to the common man. It is this object which is to be fulfilled. The allotment order itself indicates that in case of any default, the authorities would be entitled to charge penal interest. 6. The normal interest payable as per the allotment order is 15% per annum. The authorities could have charged such interest, or any penal interest, on default, if any, of the allottee, for which the petitioner should have been given notice, and in case he still defaulted in payment of the said amount, the allotment could then have been cancelled by the authorities. A reasonable opportunity has to be given to the allottee prior to the cancellation of allotment. Imposition of such condition that after the cancellation of allotment, fresh allotment shall be made on payment of the entire amount at enhanced rates within 15 days, is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary, as the same clearly shows that the respondent authorities are acting like profit making bodies or land dealers/builders. 7. Keeping in view that the last date for payment of last installment has not yet expired even today and the petitioner has made substantial deposit prior to the passing of the impugned order, even though there has been default in payment of some installments by the petitioner, cancellation order could have been passed only after notice to the petitioner to make such payment alongwith normal or penal interest, if any. In such view of the matter, we are of the firm view that the order dated 26.3.2008 is unjustified and arbitrary. We accordingly quash the same. In case the respondents have not encashed the draft dated 19.3.2008 for a sum of Rs. In such view of the matter, we are of the firm view that the order dated 26.3.2008 is unjustified and arbitrary. We accordingly quash the same. In case the respondents have not encashed the draft dated 19.3.2008 for a sum of Rs. 25,350/-, the same may be encashed or returned to the petitioner and in case, if it has been encashed by the Development Authority, the said amount shall be adjusted towards the payment made by the petitioner. Whatever amount is then found due from the petitioner, that may be intimated to the petitioner within 15 days from today and the petitioner be provided an opportunity to make such payment within a month thereafter. It is made clear that the amount so demanded from the petitioner shall be in terms of the allotment order dated 5.5.2006 and not on the enhanced rate, which the respondents may now be charging from the new allottees. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 9. No order as to costs. ————