JUDGMENT S. L. Kochar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21-7-2006 passed in W.P. No. 3893/06 by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby the petition for allotment of a plot of land to the petitioner was dismissed in limine, the appellant has preferred this Writ Appeal under section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal, according to the appellant are that the petitioner (appellant herein) was allotted a plot of land reserved for educational purposes on 3-3-1994 by the respondents (Indore Development Authority, for short the 'IDA') as a result of acceptance of the appellant's tender. Accordingly the appellant was required to deposit 50 percent of the amount Rs. 3,88,381/- which includes Rs. 15,899/- lease rent within thirty days and the balance premium amount of Rs. 4,75,044/- in 12 equal instalments in the months as indicated in para 1 of the petition. The appellant deposited only Rs. 2,00,000/-on 4-4-1994. The appellant, after depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- sought time to pay the balance amount up to May, 1994 to make 50% of total allotment premium. The IDA did not grant time and rejected the allotment vide letter dated 10-6-1994 which was not received by it. However, the petitioner received letter dated 1-2-1995 (Annexure P/3) from the IDA, therefore, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 1756/97 praying for quashment of order Annexure P/2. (In writ petition it appears that because of typing mistake in relief clause, relief was sought for quashment of order Annexure P/2 whereas it should have been Annexure P/3 thereby the respondents sent intimation about cancellation of allotment of plot). Same mistake has been committed in the instant Writ Appeal in para 3 and for issuance of direction to the respondent/IDA to receive the balance amount of premium and complete the formalities of allotment of plot of land. An interim relief was also sought for restraining the respondents further to allot the plot in question to any other educational institution. 3. On 25-11-1997, show cause notice against admission was directed to be issued to the respondent by this High Court. On 4-2-1998, the respondents submitted the return contending that after allotment of plot, as per terms and conditions within 30 days Rs. 3,88,381/- were not deposited and the petitioner deposited only Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lac rupees). 3. On 25-11-1997, show cause notice against admission was directed to be issued to the respondent by this High Court. On 4-2-1998, the respondents submitted the return contending that after allotment of plot, as per terms and conditions within 30 days Rs. 3,88,381/- were not deposited and the petitioner deposited only Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lac rupees). It was specifically mentioned in the allotment order that if stipulated amount would not be deposited within 30 days, the allotment order would automatically be cancelled and security amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) would be forfeited. The petitioner deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- on 4-4-1994 by Demand Draft and sought time to deposit the balance amount up to May, 1994. The respondent/IDA extended thirty days' time as requested and issued memo (Annexure D/1) whereby informing the petitioner to deposit the balance amount with 18% interest upto 31-5-2004. But despite extension of thirty days' time, the petitioner did not deposit the balance amount, therefore, by order dated 10-6-1994 (Annexure D/2), the allotment order was cancelled and security amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) was forfeited. It is further contended in the return that on 17-6-1994, the petitioner again submitted an application for depositing the balance amount within 15 days. This request of the petitioner was declined and appellant/petitioner was informed by memo dated 7-9-1994 about cancellation of allotment order and submission of application affixing one rupee revenue stamp for return of his deposited amount. Again on 17-11-1994, the petitioner requested for reconsideration of his application dated 17-6-1994 which was rejected by the respondents after due consideration and information thereof was given by memo/letter No. 1789 dated 1-2-1995 (Annexure P/3) to the petition. In nut shell the contention of the respondents was that the petitioner did not fulfil the terms and conditions, therefore allotment was cancelled in accordance with the provisions of law applicable to this effect. 4. On 18-2-1998, in presence of the counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner expressed the desire of the petitioner to deposit balance amount with interest and costs up to 1-3-1998 and the petition was directed to be listed on 6-3-1998. Order dated 18-2-1998 is containing only prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner, but is silent on the question whether the same was accepted or rejected. Order dated 18-2-1998 is containing only prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner, but is silent on the question whether the same was accepted or rejected. On 6-3-1998, counsel for the respondents was not present and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, learned Single Judge issued direction to the petitioner and competent officer of the respondents to accept the deposit, if made by the petitioner and ordered for listing the petition on 23-3-1998. On 23-3-1998, a bi-partite order was passed whereby the petition was admitted and on submission of the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had deposited the amount for allotment of plot, learned Single Judge directed the respondents to cancel order Annexure P/3 to the petition and to pass appropriate orders immediately. The petition was directed to be listed on 3-4-1998 for further hearing. On 3-4-1998, direction was issued to the respondents not to allot the plot in question to any one without permission of the High Court and amount deposited by the petitioner shall carry rate of interest as may ultimately be directed in the said petition. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties, finally passed the following order dated 18-5-2005 (Annexure P/7) in W.P.No. 1756/97:- 18-5-2005: Petitioner by Shri Sandeep Kochatta, Advocate. Respondent by Shri S. R. Bohra, Advocate. The prayer in the petition is to quash the order dated 10-6-1994 whereby land in question allotted to the petitioner has been cancelled. Facts of the case are that vide letter dated 3-3-1994 (Annexure P/l), a plot for educational purposes was allotted to the petitioner with a direction to deposit 50% amount within 30 days and make the payment of balance amount of 50% in quarterly instalments. The total amount, which was required to be deposited, was indicated in the letter dated 3-3-1994 as Rs. 7,94,964/-. Petitioner submits that on 4-4-1994 a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- were deposited by the petitioner and time was prayed for depositing further amount. Vide order dated 10-6-1994, allotment order was cancelled by the respondent. This order of cancellation was challenged by the petitioner by way of present petition, in which by an interim order dated 18-2-1998, petitioner was given liberty to deposit the rest amount on or before 1-3-1998. Learned counsel submits that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. This order of cancellation was challenged by the petitioner by way of present petition, in which by an interim order dated 18-2-1998, petitioner was given liberty to deposit the rest amount on or before 1-3-1998. Learned counsel submits that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 5-3-1998 and thereafter petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 21-3-1998. Thus, total amount deposited by the petitioner comes to Rs. 9,50,000/-including initial deposits. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the amount which has been deposited by the petitioner is not covering the interest and penalties completely. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- against the demand of Rs. 7,94,964/-, includes interest and penal charges. Since the plot in questions for education activities, therefore, this petition is disposed of with the direction that petitioner shall submit a representation along with a certified copy of this order before the respondent within a period of one month. If such a representation is submitted, then respondent shall take into consideration the amount deposited by the petitioner, pass a reasoned order relating to allotment of plot in question within a period of two months. While passim the order, the respondent shall also consider - Whether complete amount has been deposited by the petitioner or not. Till then, the interim order relating to maintaining the status quo in regard to plot in question shall remain in force. Till disposal of representation, order of cancellation of allotment shall remain in abeyance. Sd/- Judge 5. The appellant submitted representation Annexure P/8 in W.P. No. 3893/06, and received intimation letter Annexure P/9 issued by the respondents on 27-1-2006 for presence and hearing on representation on 30-1-2006 in the noon at 3.00 PM. before the authorized Board of respondents. After receiving the representation and hearing the appellant the representation was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 30-1-2006 (Annexure P/ll) communicated to the appellant with covering letter No. 3440 (Annexure P/10). Against dismissal of representation, the appellant again filed W.P. No. 3893/06 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge after hearing the counsel for the appellant vide impugned detailed and speaking order dated 27-7-2006. It is held by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner failed to comply with the terms and conditions of allotment letter Annexure P/l dated 3-3-1994. It is held by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner failed to comply with the terms and conditions of allotment letter Annexure P/l dated 3-3-1994. Hence the allotment made in his favour was automatically cancelled in accordance with the terms of allotment letter and this was informed to the petitioner. Learned Single Judge while considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and held in paras 8, 9 and 10 of the impugned order as under :- 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since petitioner has deposited the amount of instalments pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court (RD Vyas, J.) and hence, it amounts to compliance. I do not agree to this submission for various reasons. Firstly, interim orders do not decide the rights of the parties. Secondly, a right which was accrued to the IDA (respondent) as a result of default committed by the petitioner cannot be taken away by passing any interim orders and that too ex parte. Thirdly, any interim order passed is subject to final disposal of writ. Fourthly, the interim orders or even final order has not decided any of the rights of the parties except to direct the IDA to decide the representation when made by petitioner and lastly, the question as to whether any legal right has accrued in favour of petitioner to claim allotment on the basis of allotment letter (Annexure P-1) was never gone into on merits in the said writ. 9. In my considered view thus, petitioner being a defaulter and not ensuring the compliance of conditions of allotment letter (Annexure P-1), did not acquire any right much less legal right to insist for allotment of land in their favour pursuant to allotment letter (Annexure P-1). On the other hand, it is the IDA (respondent who became entitled to cancel the allotment made in favour of petitioner by virtue of condition of allotment letter, which as stated supra came in operation no sooner defaults occurred at the instance of petitioner. 10. A writ Court cannot condone the delay in making a deposit by the petitioner, nor this Court can issue a writ against the IDA to condone the delay and accept the monthly instalment so deposited. 10. A writ Court cannot condone the delay in making a deposit by the petitioner, nor this Court can issue a writ against the IDA to condone the delay and accept the monthly instalment so deposited. It is the discretion and/or prerogative of IDA to act in accordance with the terms/conditions of allotment letter because it is their right which flows from allotment letter. In other words, a writ Court cannot compel a party to an agreement to act in a particular manner so as to confer any benefit to a party to an agreement if the said party does not wish to act in that manner voluntarily. As observed supra, it is only when one party fulfil all their contractual obligations and performs their part strictly in terms of agreement/allotment letter then they acquire a right to seek enforcement of agreement by filing a suit or writ as the case may be against other contracting parties who have refused to perform their part. 6. While dismissing the petition, learned Single Judge granted opportunity to the appellant to participate in any tender proceedings, if invited by the Indore Development Authority for disposal of the land in question in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender notice and the appellant will be entitled to claim refund of its entire money with interest as per rules as are enacted for this purpose, from the IDA. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the entire record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has incorrectly mentioned in the impugned order that interim order dated 23-3-1998 (Annexure P/6) in W.P. No. 3893/06 was an ex parte order whereas it was a bi partite order whereby the direction was given to the respondents to cancel the order Annexure P/3 to the petition (W.P. No. 1756/97) and pass appropriate orders immediately and the petition was fixed for further hearing on 3-4-1998. It is also submitted that the petition was survived only for the prayer of quashing of order No. 6648 dated 10-6-1994 whereby the allotment was cancelled, (This order was not filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 1756/97), but the respondents had filed the same as Annexure D/2 with return and in view of interim order Annexure P/6 and final order Annexure P/7 dated 18-5-2005, the order on representation should have been passed in favour of the appellant/ petitioner by the respondents and same was wrongly dismissed by order Annexure P/l 1 dated 30-1-2006. Apart from this, no other point was pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. To combat with learned counsel for the respondents banked upon the return filed by the respondents and also supported the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition dated 27-7-2006. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record carefully, we do not find any substance in this writ appeal. Learned Single Judge has passed a detailed and well reasoned order while dismissing the petition which does not call for any indulgence or interference. 11. It is true that in para 8 of the impugned order, it is mentioned that the interim orders were passed ex parte and this statement of fact is partly correct. Out of three interim orders, order dated 6-3-1998 Annexure P/6 was passed in absence of the counsel for the respondents allowing the prayer of the petitioner directing the competent officer of the respondents to accept the deposit, if made by the petitioner and the order dated 23-3-1998 was a bi-partite order, but this was an interim order whereby the right of the parties were not finally decided as rightly discussed by the learned Single Judge in para 8 (supra). By final order Annexure P/7 dated 18-5-2005 passed in W.P. No. 1756/97, rights of the parties were not decided and only direction was given to consider the representation filed by the appellant/petitioner. 12. By final order Annexure P/7 dated 18-5-2005 passed in W.P. No. 1756/97, rights of the parties were not decided and only direction was given to consider the representation filed by the appellant/petitioner. 12. The respondents/IDA have decided the representation by passing a detailed speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant/petitioner in accordance with the provision of "Sampattiyon Ke Vyayan Tatha Unse Sambandhit Any a Anusamatik Mamlo Ke Viniyam", 1987 [For short Vyayan Viniyam 1987 (Regulation)] framed in accordance with the provision of section 58 read with section 86 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. 13. It would be apposite to mention here that in W.P. No. 1756/97 the petitioner has contended that after allotment of plot in question by order dated 3-3-1994 (Annexure P/l), the petitioner sought time for depositing the balance amount as per terms and conditions of allotment letter by submitting letter dated 4-4-1994 Annexure P/2, but no time was granted. This contention was denied by the respondents specifically in the return and they submitted that by document Annexure D/l dated 5-5-1994, time was extended, to deposit the balance amount i.e. 40% with 18% per annum interest because of delay, up to 31-5-1994. This contention of respondents in the return was not controverted by filing any rejoinder. Before this Court also, learned counsel for the respondents/IDA pointed out this factual position and document Annexure D/l which has not been controverted orally or in writing by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner. This shows that the appellant did not deposit 50% amount of the premium within thirty days as per allotment letter dated 3-3-1994 and even after extension of time, the balance amount was not deposited. This, extension was done by the respondents as per provision of Vyayan Viniyam (Regulation) year 1987 Clause 23(b)(1). When the appellant did not care to deposit the balance amount as per allotment letter and letter of extension of time he was communicated with letter of cancellation and was asked to take refund of his deposit amount. While deciding the representation by order Annexure P/l 1, the ID A/respondents have mentioned this fact specifically in para 8. 14. When the appellant did not care to deposit the balance amount as per allotment letter and letter of extension of time he was communicated with letter of cancellation and was asked to take refund of his deposit amount. While deciding the representation by order Annexure P/l 1, the ID A/respondents have mentioned this fact specifically in para 8. 14. The respondents have also considered in para 9 of the order Annexure P/l 1 that because of default or non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the plot allotment letter and non-deposit of the amount even after extended period according to Vyayan Viniyam year 1987 there is no provision giving e.uthority to the respondents to revive or restore the allotment of plot which came to be cancelled automatically. In para 9 of order Annexure P/l 1, the respondents have also considered the provisions under Clause 24(4) of Vyayan Viniyam regarding extension of period/time for depositing the instalments, the appellant did not deposit the required amount of Rs. 13,05,510/- for revival or restoration of cancelled allotment of plot, up to March, 1998 when the interim order dated 23-3-1998 was passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant to deposit the balance amount. The appellant was to deposit the balance amount along with interest and penalty i.e. Rs. 13,05,510/- and he deposited only Rs 9.50 lacs rupees up to March, 1998, therefore, in view of Clause 24(4) of the Vyayan Viniyam (Regulation) year 1987 the plot allotment could not be revived. In the opinion of this Court, the respondents/IDA have not committed any breach of any fundamental right of the appellant. 15. The IDA is a Statutory Body and State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is required to act in accordance with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and rules/regulations framed thereunder. 15. The IDA is a Statutory Body and State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is required to act in accordance with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and rules/regulations framed thereunder. We fully agree with the opinion of the learned Single Judge that "a Writ Court cannot condone the delay in making the deposit by the petitioner, nor this Court can issue a Writ against the IDA to condone the delay and accept the monthly instalments so deposited." Learned counsel for the appellant did not point out any provision of law available in Town and Country Planning Act under which this Court can condone the delay for deposit especially when the IDA was not at fault and fault lies with the appellant. 15A. After passing of interim order dated 23-3-1998 Annexure P/6, the respondents complied with this order and also discussed the same in para 4 of order Annexure P/ll and passed the order dated 3-4-1998 that the plot in question would not be allotted to anybody without permission of the Court and amount deposited by the appellant would be refunded with interest as per order/direction passed by the High Court. In this view of the matter, we do not find any force in the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the interim order dated 23-3-1998 was not complied with. 16. Consequently, in view of the foregoing legal and factual discussion, it is held that the appellant was at fault and we do not find any force in this Writ Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed maintaining the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Appeal dismissed