Judgment K. Kannan, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the decision of the Principal Secretary to government, Punjab revising the decision of the petitioner to cancel the allotment of a MIG flat. The admitted case is that after a draw made for allotment of class of various persons, the 2nd respondent was favoured with a letter of intent for allotment of 08.04.2002. Under the terms of the allotment, the initial payment of 50% of the value was to be paid within a month which, in this case, fell on 08.05.2002. She did not make the payment nor did she apply for extension of time for making the payment. She however gave a representation on 17.10.2003 that is nearly after 1 1/2 year expressing her willingness to making the payment of the entire amount and citing an alleged personal illness as a reason for not complying with the terms of allotment as regards the payment. The petitioner allowed the representation to languish for some time before it passed an order on 10.03.2004 cancelling the allotment. This cancellation was challenged by the petitioner who cited, apart from her own illness, the alleged illness of her husband as cause for non-payment within the time stipulated. The Appellate Authority also rejected the claim and when the matter was brought for consideration in revision before the Principal Secretary to Government, the authorities examined the contention of the petitioner apart from illness pleaded, also on the ground that she had been a red card holder being a riot victim and the financial aid that she was expecting from the Government had arrived only later and there was need to take a lenient view in the case of riot affected victims since they had already suffered loss of life and valuables and the case would be treated on sympathetic consideration, as well. In taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Principal Secretary directed the Estate Officer to calculate the amount outstanding within a period of 30 days from the date of the order which was passed on 27.02.2007. It is this order which is in challenge before me. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was giving a new reason every time. It is this order which is in challenge before me. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was giving a new reason every time. When it was merely a case of personal illness of the allottee on the first occasion, later after the cancellation of allotment was made, she came with the story of the illness of her husband also and when the matter was before the Revisional authority, she had pleaded for a reason that she was a riot victim and the case was required to be considered with sympathy. In the matter of allotment of the flat if the parties were to be driven only by the contractual obligations by the stipulation of time, it has to be set for both sides. If the 2nd respondent had committed a default of not paying the amount of 50% within the stipulated date, the HUDA itself did not think it necessary to either issue a notice for the payment with the stipulation and warn the consequence of such default as entailing cancellation. It did not decide to cancel the allotment immediately after serving with such notice as the contract had provided for. The petitioner had done pretty little till the 2nd respondent herself made a representation 1 1/2 year later on 17.10.2003 offering to pay the whole amount and citing some reasons for non-payment earlier. If the petitioner had, in the meanwhile cancelled the allotment and made a fresh allotment to some other person and realized the full consideration, probably different consequence could have flowed out of an altered approach which could have been possible. However, in this case, when the allotment had not been made and when the property was still available and when there was an offer made by the person to pay the whole amount and an authority had taken a decision to take a lenient view, there is no scope for this Court to intervene with such an approach made already by an authority, who is competent to take a final decision. A riot victim of the year, 1984 to whom the authority decided to extend a lenient view does not cease to be a victim of the riot. We still have a legal process being pursued for bringing to book the persons alleged to be guilty. 3. A riot victim of the year, 1984 to whom the authority decided to extend a lenient view does not cease to be a victim of the riot. We still have a legal process being pursued for bringing to book the persons alleged to be guilty. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the scheme itself was founded in the year 2001and the allotments were for general purpose and this was not a scheme for rehabilitation of riot victims. The consideration for allotment definitely was not whether a person was a riot victim or not, but ultimately when a decision was taken, the authority had taken an overall reckoning and observed that she was also a riot victim and would require a sympathetic consideration. It is not wholly an irrelevant consideration and the discretion exercised by the authority to extend to her the allotment on payment of the amount was properly exercised. If there had been a delay in making the payment that could be compensated by award of interest. 4. It is also contended that there was no provision for an appeal against the letter of intent and only after the order of allotment is cancelled, the intended allottee could have exercised the right of appeal. This submission, in my view, is meaningless for a letter of intent is an offer and if that offer was not cancelled till 10.03.2004 and an acceptance had come through a willingness to pay on 17.10.2003 then it amounts to a person becoming entitled to an allotment unless it had been cancelled. The intent through an offer is closed by an acceptance. Iif they had decided to call back the offer, it should have been done even before the acceptance was made and communicated by the 2nd respondent. The order dated 10.03.2004 had the effect of cancellation of an allotment and if an appeal was possible against the order of such allotment and an appeal is possible, a fortiorari even against the order made on 10.03.2004. Whatever amount that has been paid already shall be given credit and the accumulation of interest will be calculated only after giving credit to such payment. 5. The petitioner has not complied with the directions given by the Revisional authority to the Estate Officer to stipulate the amount due. Whatever amount that has been paid already shall be given credit and the accumulation of interest will be calculated only after giving credit to such payment. 5. The petitioner has not complied with the directions given by the Revisional authority to the Estate Officer to stipulate the amount due. The amount that is due shall be taken from the date when the allotment was made and when the last of instalments should have been made. The interest shall be worked out at 12% per annum from that date till the date of making the payment to claim the allotment. The amount shall be reckoned by the 2nd respondent herself and the amount shall be dispatched within a time of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. If she fails, the order canceling the allotment already made on 10.03.2004 shall stand restored. 6. The writ petition is dismissed with such observations as made above.