JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J.:-The petitioner-association has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 14.11.2006, passed by the Principal Secretary to Government Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development-cum-Revisional Authority, under Section 45 (8) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning Development Act, 1995 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). The earnest money paid by the petitioner-association for participation in the draw of lots has been forfeited to the extent of 50% by the respondents, as is evident from the impugned order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.7.2005 an advertisement was published by the Punjab Urban Development Authority, Mohali (for short, ‘PUDA’) in the English daily ‘Hindustan Times’, inviting applications for auction of six school sites at the Urban Estate, Mohali. The auction took place on 17.8.2005. On 12.8.2005, the petitioner-association deposited 5% of the reserve price, amounting to Rs. 7,26,000/- as participation fee before the bid in the Estate Office. The petitioner-association was the highest bidder of 1.39 acres plot reserved for Middle/High School in Sector 66 and gave the bid to purchase the plot @ Rs. 12,000/- per Sq. Yard. The petitioner-association was required to deposit 15% of the bid amount after adjusting the participation fee either on the same date i.e. at the time of auction or after one day failing which the participation fee was to be forfeited. The 15% amount required to be deposited amounted to Rs. 1,14,84,594/-. However, the petitioner association failed to deposit the amount and could offer the same only on 22.8.2005, which was not accepted and highest bid given by the petitioner-association in respect of plot measuring 1.39 acres was cancelled. The whole participation fee, amounting to Rs. 7,26,000/- was ordered to be forfeited. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-association filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, PUDA, Mohali. On 30.11.2005, the Chief Administrator ordered refund of 50% of the participation fee but rejected the claim for the remaining amount (P-3). Thereafter, the petitioner-association preferred a revision under Section 45(8) of the Act, which has been rejected by the Principal Secretary to Government Punjab, vide order dated 14.11.2006 (P-4). 4. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos. On 30.11.2005, the Chief Administrator ordered refund of 50% of the participation fee but rejected the claim for the remaining amount (P-3). Thereafter, the petitioner-association preferred a revision under Section 45(8) of the Act, which has been rejected by the Principal Secretary to Government Punjab, vide order dated 14.11.2006 (P-4). 4. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 it has been asserted that according to the advertisement published by the PUDA (P-1) it has been postulated by clause 2 that in the event of failure to deposit the balance amount of 15% within the stipulated period then the participation fee would be forfeited without any notice and the property is to be offered through re-auction after issuing a fresh advertisement. The respondents have pointed out that once the petitioner-association has admitted the fact of offering the amount for the first time on 22.8.2005, which was required to be offered either on 17.8.2005 or on 18.8.2005 then there is no escape from the conclusion that clause 2 of the advertisement would come in operation and the petitioner-association would forfeit the participation fee. It is claimed that sympathetic view has been taken by the Chief Administrator-cum-Appellate Authority-respondent No. 2 in ordering refund of 50% amount of participation fee. 5. On a pointed query raised by the Court, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has stated that the petitioner-association has given the bid of the plot in question at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per Sq. Yard whereas the plot has now been sold at the rate of approximately Rs. 40,000/- per Sq. Yard. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length, we are of the view that this petition lacks merit and, thus, liable to be dismissed. As per clause No. 2 of the advertisement, dated 26.7.2005 (P-1), the petitioner-association was required to deposit the balance amount of 15% either on 17.8.2005 or maximum on the next day i.e. 18.8.2005. Under the sub-heading ‘Mode of Payment’, the following clause makes the aforementioned position clear:- “Successful bidders shall be required to deposit 15% (fifteen percent) of the highest bid amount (after adjusting participation fee) in cash or by an account payee demand draft at the fall of hammer or within one additional calendar day to the Presiding Officer (The Chief Administrator, PUDA).” 7. The result of failure to deposit the aforementioned amount has been indicated by clause 2, which reads thus:- “2. In the event of failure to deposit the balance of 15% amount within the stipulated period, the participation fee shall be forfeited without any notice and the property in question shall be offered again through re-auction, after issuing a fresh advertisement.” 8. There is no provision either in the advertisement or in any other rules or instructions for extending the period for depositing of 15% of the balance amount. Such being the legal position, the 50% refund refused to be paid by the respondents cannot be termed as illegal. There is, thus, no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. ----------------