Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.— Heard Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.S.Pawar, learned counsel appearing for Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. The facts of the case, as averred by the petitioner, are that having been allotted plot no. 22/726, measuring of 25.05 sq. mt. situate in Indira Nagar Extension Scheme, Lucknow, a housing scheme of Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as 'Parishad'), vide letter dated 09.09.2003, the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 91,002/- within a period of one month. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Rs. 10,000/- had already been deposited by the petitioner towards registration fee. However, after issuance of letter on 09.09.2003, the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 91,002/- within one month. The petitioner, within three days of issuance of the said demand letter, was informed vide letter dated 12.09.2003 by the Estate Manager in the Estate Management Office, Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Indira Nagar that the allotment made on 29.08.2003 in her favour pursuant to which the demand letter was issued on 09.09.2003, has been deferred by means of the letter of Secretary in the department of Housing and Urban Planning, Government of U.P dated 08.09.2003 and vide consequential letter issued by the Additional Housing Commissioner-cum Secretary of the Parishad dated 10.09.2003. The said letter dated 12.09.2003 deferring the allotment made in favour of the petitioner has been annexed as annexure no. 4 to the writ petition. Submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of issuance of letter dated 12.09.2003, the petitioner could not deposit the amount and for that matter he could not have deposited the same as allotment made in her favour was deferred. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after deferring the allotment made in favour of the petitioner, she moved representations to the authorities concerned but the same did not yield any result. However, it is only on 02.02.2010 that the petitioner was informed for the first time by the Estate Manager that as per allotment made in her favour on 09.09.2003, she was to deposit instalments amounting to Rs.1,07,422/- and in addition to the same, a sum of Rs. 1,07,124.70 was also to be deposited as penal interest. However, it is only on 02.02.2010 that the petitioner was informed for the first time by the Estate Manager that as per allotment made in her favour on 09.09.2003, she was to deposit instalments amounting to Rs.1,07,422/- and in addition to the same, a sum of Rs. 1,07,124.70 was also to be deposited as penal interest. According to this letter, as the aforesaid two amounts had become due till 02.02.2010, the petitioner was required to deposit the aforesaid amount in the accounts of the Parishad. The petitioner appears to have represented her case bringing to the notice of the authorities of the Parishad that she is not liable to make any payment of penal interest etc. for the reason that the allotment made in her favour on 29.08.2003 and 09.09.2003 was deferred by the letter dated 12.09.2003 and as such at the relevant point of time i.e. immediately after allotment, she could not have deposited the amount. The delay in making payment has not been caused by the petitioner, as such she is not liable to make any payment other than the actual original price of the plot in question. However, the authorities of the Parishad, instead of realizing the fact that the petitioner could not have deposited the amount because of deferment of allotment made by the State Government/Parishad, reiterated the stand taken by the Parishad vide letter dated 28.05.2010 wherein the petitioner has again been required to deposit the amount as demanded earlier. The only relaxation which was given is that the petitioner can get the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS). These are the two orders dated 02.02.2010 and 28.05.2010 which are under challenge in the instant writ petition on the grounds discussed above, namely, that the petitioner cannot be held liable for non-payment of the amount in any manner for the reason that within three days of raising the demand, vide letter dated 12.09.2003 the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was deferred by the authorities of State Government and those of the Parishad. It is only because of deferment of allotment that the petitioner was unable to make any deposit for which she cannot be saddled with any fault whatsoever in any manner. It is only because of deferment of allotment that the petitioner was unable to make any deposit for which she cannot be saddled with any fault whatsoever in any manner. It has been argued, thus, by learned counsel for the petitioner that the demand of penal interest or any other amount other than the original price of the plot in question from the petitioner by the authorities of the Parishad is absolutely arbitrarily, unlawful and if not interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same would cause prejudice to the petitioner and would be absolutely arbitrary. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Parishad denying the claim of the petitioner. Sri K.S. Pawar, learned counsel appearing for the Parishad, however, has failed to convince the Court as to how the petitioner can be saddled with the fault of not making the deposit against the allotment in the wake of letter dated 12.09.2003 whereby allotment itself made in favour of the petitioner was deferred. The only information furnished by the Parishad in its counter affidavit filed in the case is that the Estate Manager in the office of the Parishad has repeatedly written letters to the Headquarters of the Parishad for taking decision with respect to the plot in question, namely, 22/726 so that the Parishad may not suffer any financial loss. It has further been stated that the State Government lifted the ban only on 31.10.2007 and as such the matter was further processed and letters dated 02.02.2010 and 28.05.2010 have been issued to the petitioner requiring her to deposit the amount mentioned therein. From a closer scrutiny of the counter affidavit filed by the Parishad, it is abundantly clear that no plausible reason has been given for imposing penal interest upon the petitioner in the background of the fact that the petitioner could not have deposited the amount for the reason that deferment of allotment made in her favour was done by the authorities of the State Government and the Parishad vide letter dated 12.09.2003 itself. In absence of any plausible reason given by the authorities of the Parishad in its counter affidavit, the Court is of the definite opinion that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount other than the original price of the plot in question. In absence of any plausible reason given by the authorities of the Parishad in its counter affidavit, the Court is of the definite opinion that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount other than the original price of the plot in question. She is not liable to make any payment of penal interest or any other amount over and above the original price of plot. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad vs Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow and others, reported in [2011 (29) LCD 2541] dealing with allotment of plots by Lucknow Development Authority, whose functions are akin to those of the Parishad, has held that actions of the State and its instrumentalities should conform to the well established principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness. This Court in the said case of Ganesh Prasad (supra) in para 88 has observed as under:- 88.In the case reported in (2011) 6 SCC 125 : Humanity and another. Vs. State of West Bengal and others, relying upon the leading case reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489 : Ramana Dayaram Shetty. Vs. International Airport Authority of India, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Government cannot act in a manner which would benefit a private party as it would be contrary to public interest, to reproduce relevant portion of para 23, 24 and 25 of the judgment of State of West Bengal (supra), as under: "23. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that in the matter of granting largesse, Government has to act fairly and without even any semblance of discrimination. Law on this subject has been very clearly laid down by this court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India. A three- Judge Bench in the said decision has recognized that the Government, in a welfare State, is in a position of distributing largesse in a large measure and in doing so the Government cannot act at its pleasure. This court perusing the new jurisprudential theory of Professor Reich in his article on the "The New Property" accepted the following dictum contained therein: (SCC p.505, para 11) "11....That Government action be based on standards that are not arbitrary on unauthorised." 24. This court perusing the new jurisprudential theory of Professor Reich in his article on the "The New Property" accepted the following dictum contained therein: (SCC p.505, para 11) "11....That Government action be based on standards that are not arbitrary on unauthorised." 24. This court explained the purport of the aforesaid formulation by holding: (Ramana case, SCC p.505, para 11) "11....The government cannot be permitted to say that it will give jobs or enter into contracts or issue quotas or licenses only in favour of those having grey hair or belonging to a particular political party or professing a particular religious faith. The Government is still the government when it acts in the matter of granting largesse and it cannot act arbitrarily. It does not stand in the same position as a private individual." The aforesaid dictum in Ramana is still followed by this court as the correct exposition of law and has been subsequently followed in many other decisions. 25. In Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J & K., another three-Judge Bench relied on the dictum in Ramana and held that whenever any governmental action fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest, it is liable to be struck down as invalid. This Court held that a necessary corollary of this proposition is that the Government cannot act in a manner which would benefit a private party. Such an action will be contrary to public interest. (See SCC p. 13, para 14 of the Report)" In the case reported in (2011) 6 SCC 756 : APM Terminals B.V. Vs. Union of India and another, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that any change in decision making process must be free from arbitrariness, irrationality bias and malice, to quote relevant portion of para 69:- "69. As was held in Shimnit Utsch India (P) Ltd. Vs. W.B. Transport Infrastructure Development Corpn. Ltd., the Government was entitled to change its policies with changing circumstances and only on grounds of change a policy does not stand vitiated. It was further held that the Government has the discretion to adopt a different policy, alter or change its policy to make it more effective. W.B. Transport Infrastructure Development Corpn. Ltd., the Government was entitled to change its policies with changing circumstances and only on grounds of change a policy does not stand vitiated. It was further held that the Government has the discretion to adopt a different policy, alter or change its policy to make it more effective. The only qualifying condition is that such change in policy must be free from arbitrariness, irrationality, bias and malice and must be in conformity with the principle of Wednesbury reasonableness." The impugned action of the Parishad, if tested on the legal principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness as enunciated by this Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad (supra), thus, falls to ground as raising the demand of penal interest or any additional amount other than the original price of the plot from the petitioner, without there being any fault on her part in depositing the amount originally demanded by the Parishad, is explicitly arbitrary. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the letter dated 02.02.2010 written by Estate Manager, Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad as contained in annexure no. 1 to the writ petition and the letter/order dated 28.05.2010 issued by the Estate Manager, Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad as contained in annexure no.10 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. A direction is issued to the opposite parties to handover the possession of plot no. 22/726, Indira Nagar, Extension Scheme, Lucknow to the petitioner on her depositing the total original price of the said plot as per allotment made in her favour on 29.08.2003 and as per demand letter dated 09.09.2003. They shall also execute the requisite deed in her favour. As soon as the balance amount, if any, is deposited by the petitioner in terms of the observations made in this judgment, the peaceful possession of plot in question shall be handed over to the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from the date of clearance of dues by her, if any. Thereafter, necessary deed etc. shall also be executed in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date the dues, if any, are cleared by the petitioner. There will be no order as to cost. _