JUDGMENT 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner and the Housing' Board. 2. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ application for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allot a suitable plot in the locality and at the price on which the other applicants were allotted plots. 3. The petitioner based his claim on the ground that he was the son of the original applicant, who had died on 13.10.1994 leaving behind her successors including the petitioner. The original applicant applied for a plot in the locality of Kankarbagh on 19.12.1972 under the scheme of allotment of middle income group house plots by the respondent no.7, for which she also deposited a registration fee and earnest money subsequently. She subsequently applied on 15.1.1972 in the prescribed format and gave a formal representation for consideration of her request for allotment. The petitioner submitted that even after 23 years the Housing Board had not allotted any plot and in fact have favoured others who had applied later to her. 4. The matter was heard on various occasions in which counter affidavits were filed by the Board. The stand of the Board was that there were huge number of applicants for category MIG plots and the Government was considering allotment to all of them and even though the Board had acquired about 12.25 acres of land in Digha a large portion of it was under encroachment and, therefore, the exercise could not be completed. The stand of the Board was, therefore, that they were unable to meet with a demand on account of paucity of lands. Further, the seniority of applying for MIG plot was not the sole criteria for allotment and no one below the petitioner in the list prepared by the Government had been allotted a plot since she came much below in the list of seniority her claim could not be considered. 5. Having gone through the contents of the petitioner as well as the counter affidavits, there is no doubt that no right accrued to the petitioner's mother by her mere application for allotment of plot and the constraints of the Government for allotment of plots cannot be ignored by the courts when hearing such applications. 6. In view of such, the application is dismissed.