JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. 2. Counter and Rejoinder affidavit has been exchanged, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of. 3. By this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for mandamus commanding the respondents to supply the documents required for registration towards allotment of Flat No. 1-B in Sector-105 against the Housing Scheme Code No. 2006-07 (H) (01), NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar in favour of the petitioner and pay interest on the deposited amount from 17.11.2006 till the possession is given. 4. Petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that an advertisement was issued inviting applications for allotment of H.I.G. Flats in Sector 105, NOIDA under the Scheme Code No. 2006-07 (H) (01). The flats were to be allotted on the basis of draw. The petitioner has applied for the same and in the draw which was held on 11.9.2006 petitioner’s name was selected for allotment of H.I.G. flat. Under the aforesaid scheme a provisional allotment order was issued on 18.9.2006, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The said allotment order provided the conditions one of which is quoted hereinbelow : “You are requested to deposit the allotment money as full & final payment of Rs. 27, 81, 000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Eighty One Thousand only) directly in the Banks of Noida through bank draft within 60 days from the date of this letter. In the event of failure to deposit the above mentioned amount within stipulated period, action shall be taken as per the terms & conditions of the brochure.” The petitioner in pursuance of the allotment order dated 18.9.2006 deposited an amount of Rs. 27,81,000/- on November, 17th 2006, copy of the receipt has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Petitioner thereafter made a request to the respondent authority for issuance of No Dues Certificate. A letter was issued to the petitioner on 2nd April, 2007 asking the receipts. Petitioner submitted the receipt on 18.1.2008 but still when no steps were taken he has filed this writ petition. Petitioner thereafter made a request to the respondent authority for issuance of No Dues Certificate. A letter was issued to the petitioner on 2nd April, 2007 asking the receipts. Petitioner submitted the receipt on 18.1.2008 but still when no steps were taken he has filed this writ petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents taking the stand that since the petitioner had made the deposit beyond 60 days which was a condition in the allotment order, the allotment in favour of the petitioner stood cancelled. It is further stated that the petitioner had deposited the amount on 61st day. The stand taken by the respondents is mentioned in paragraph-3 of the counter-affidavit which is quoted hereinbelow : “That the contents of paragraph Nos. 1-9 of the writ petition are not admitted in the form they are stated. It is submitted that the petitioner Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta got himself registered for allotment of HIgher Income Group Flat in Scheme Code No. 2006-07 (H) (01) on 18.9.2006 a draw by lottery was held on 11.9.2006 in which the petitioner was declared successful and Flat No. 1-B, Block ‘A’, Sector 105 was allotted. Allotment letter No. 4146 was issued to the petitioner on 18.9.2006 and as per the terms of the allotment the entire amount was payable by the petitioner within 60 days from the date the letter was issued. The petitioner deposited the amount on 61st day after the time to deposit the amount had expired. As per the terms and conditions of the brochure the entire amount was to be deposited within 60 days issue of allotment letter. Since the petitioner did not deposit the amount within time mentioned in the brochure his allotment of Flat automatically stood cancelled as per the terms of the brochure, therefore, lease deed of the aforesaid Flat cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner. The relevant page of the brochure containing the terms and conditions duly agreed to by the petitioner and signed by the petitioner is being filed herewith as Annexure-1 to this counter-affidavit.” 5. Only objection taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit that as the deposit was not made by the petitioner within the time rather it was made after the expiry of the period, hence the allotment stood cancelled. 6. Only objection taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit that as the deposit was not made by the petitioner within the time rather it was made after the expiry of the period, hence the allotment stood cancelled. 6. The allotment order was issued to the petitioner on 18.9.2006, the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit brought on record the copy of the receipt of speed post letter which was received by the petitioner on 28.9.2006. 7. From the date of receipt of the letter obviously the deposit was within 60 days. However, we proceed to consider the stand of the respondent taking date of the allotment letter itself, as to whether the deposit was made within 60 days from 18.9.2006 or not. It is well settled that when an action is required to be taken within a specified date, the day on which such notice is issued is to be excluded. The deposit was made on 17th November, 2006 which comes within 60 days. Such proposition was laid down by the Apex Court in Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd., 1999 (3) SCC 1 following was laid down in paragraph-6 of the order which is quoted below : “Similar contention was considered by this Court in the case of Haru Das Gupta v. State of West Bengal wherein it was held that the rule is well established that where a particular time is given from a certain date within which an act is to be done, the day on that day is to be excluded; the effect of defining period from such a day until such a day within which an act is to be done is to exclude the first day and to include the last day. In the context of that case, the Court held that in computing the period of three months from the date of detention, which was 5.2 1971, before the expiration of which the order or decision for confirming the detention order and continuing the detention thereunder had to be made, the date of the commencement of detention, namely, February 5th has to be excluded; so done, the order of confirmation dated 5.5.1971 was made before the expiration of the period of three months from the date of detention. The Court held that there is no reason why the aforesaid rule of construction followed consistently and for so long should not be applied. The Court held that there is no reason why the aforesaid rule of construction followed consistently and for so long should not be applied. For the aforesaid principle Court referred to the principle followed in English Courts. The relevant discussion is hereunder: (SCC p. 641, para 5) “5. These decisions show that courts have drawn a distinction between a term created within which an act may be done and a time limited for the doing of an act. The rule is well established that where a particular time is given from a certain date within which an act is to be done, the day on that date is to be excluded. (See Goldsmiths’ Co. v. The West Metropolitan Rly Co., KB at p. 5). This rule was followed in Cartwright v. MacCormack, All ER at p. 13 where the expression “fifteen days from the commencement of the policy” in a cover note issued by an insurance company was construed as excluding the first date and the cover note to commence at midnight of that day, and also in Marren v. Dawson Bentley & Co. Ltd., a case for compensation for injuries received in the course of employment, where for purposes of computing the period of limitation the date of the accident, being the date of the cause of action, was excluded. (See also Stewart v. Chapman and North, Re ex p. Hasluck) Thus, as a general rule the effect of defining a period from such a day until such a day within which an act is to be done is to exclude the first day and to include the last day. (See Halsbury’s Laws of England, (3rd Edn.), Vol.37, pp. 92 and 95. There is no reason why the aforesaid rule of construction followed consistently and for so long should not also be applied here.” 8. From the law laid down by Apex Court as noticed above, the deposit made by the petitioner has to be held within 60 days and the stand taken by the respondents is wholly erroneous and incorrect. It has been stated in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner that possession was given to the other allottees in September, 2008. The petitioner was clearly entitled for possession in September, 2008 alongwith the other allottees but because of incorrect and erroneous stand taken by the respondents, petitioner has been denied the benefit of possession. It has been stated in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner that possession was given to the other allottees in September, 2008. The petitioner was clearly entitled for possession in September, 2008 alongwith the other allottees but because of incorrect and erroneous stand taken by the respondents, petitioner has been denied the benefit of possession. The amount of Rs. 27,81,000/- had already been deposited by the petitioner which has been kept by the respondents but till date the respondents have not taken care to refund the money if they had taken the stand that the deposit was not within the time. 9. In view of the aforesaid, we are satisfied that the action of non-delivery of possession to the petitioner and non execution of sale deed is clearly arbitrary, the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed in the writ petition. 10. The writ petition is allowed with the following directions : The respondents are directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and also hand over the possession within the same period. Respondents are further directed to pay the interest on the deposit of the petitioner from October, 2008 till the date of delivery of possession @ 9%. The amount of interest be also paid to the petitioner within the same period. ————