JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.:- Challenge in the present writ petition is to the orders dated 06.12.2004 (Annexure P-2), 14.03.2006 (Annexure P-4) and 11.06.2010 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Estate Officer, the Administrator and the Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, respectively in respect of the residential plot No.2680, Sector 21-III, Panchkula. 2. The petitioner applied for a 10 marla residential plot in pursuance of an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of plots. Respondent No.6 - HDFC Bank Limited financed the amount of earnest money payable to HUDA. The petitioner was successful in the draw of lots. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the allotment letter dated 27.04.2004 in respect of allotment of plot No.2680, Sector 21-III, Panchkula was never sent to her, as it was possibly sent to respondent No.6 and the said respondent did not inform the petitioner about the same. As per the allotment letter, the petitioner was to deposit an additional amount of Rs.1,37,361/- to make 25% of the tentative price within 30 days. Though the stand of the petitioner is that she has not received the allotment letter, but she sought a copy of the said letter vide representation dated 05.11.2004. However, an order dated 06.12.2004 in respect of cancellation of allotment was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the cancellation order in appeal. During the pendency of such appeal, the Appellate Authority has written letter on 12.07.2005 to the Bank about the receipt/dispatch of allotment letter. The Bank vide its letter dated 13.07.2005 has informed the Administrator that the petitioner was informed about the allotment letter. Thereafter, while exercising the powers of Chief Administrator, the Administrator disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 14.03.2006 with an advice to approach the competent authority i.e. Chairman, HUDA – cum- Chief Minister, Haryana to consider; whether the delay in making the payment is condonable or not. In terms of the directions of the Administrator, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.08.2006, which was decided vide order dated 11.06.2010 (Annexure P-10). There is specific recital that the Hon’ble Chief Minister –cum- Chief Administrator, HUDA i.e. the competent authority has agreed to the above conclusion. It is, thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. In terms of the directions of the Administrator, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.08.2006, which was decided vide order dated 11.06.2010 (Annexure P-10). There is specific recital that the Hon’ble Chief Minister –cum- Chief Administrator, HUDA i.e. the competent authority has agreed to the above conclusion. It is, thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have filed their written statement and produced on record the application form, wherein the address for the correspondence was that of HDFC Ltd., Sector – 9, Panchkula. The said respondents have also produced dispatch register in respect of dispatch of the allotment letter vide Sr.No.1987. The letter of allotment was sent by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) to respondent No.6 – HDFC Bank as the address of the communication mentioned on the application form submitted by the Petitioner. 4. In a separate written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.6 – HDFC Ltd., it is mentioned that the applicant/loanees themselves authorized the Bank to receive the allotment letter directly from the HUDA, if they are declared successful in the draw of lots. It is submitted that if the applicant is successful, his/her allotment letter is received by the Bank, as a security for repayment of the loan and thereafter, the applicant/loanee is at liberty to repay the earnest money loan amount to the Bank and terminate the loan agreement. After the termination of loan agreement, the applicant can receive his/her allotment letter, as a token of discharge of his/her liability towards the Bank. It is also mentioned that the petitioner did not collect her allotment letter from the Bank despite numerous requests though no record is available. Respondent No.6 has also produced on record a copy of the loan agreement as well as the application for obtaining the loan. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an argument that the period of 30 days is to be counted from the date the letter of allotment is received by an allottee. Reliance is placed upon Aruna Luthra Vs. State of Haryana, 1987 (2) PLR 124. It is also argued that delay upto one year could be condoned by the Chairman, HUDA in terms of the policy dated 20.03.2007, but the Chairman, HUDA has not passed any order. The request for extension in time has been declined by the Chief Administrator. Reliance is placed upon Aruna Luthra Vs. State of Haryana, 1987 (2) PLR 124. It is also argued that delay upto one year could be condoned by the Chairman, HUDA in terms of the policy dated 20.03.2007, but the Chairman, HUDA has not passed any order. The request for extension in time has been declined by the Chief Administrator. It is also argued that from the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.6, it is apparent that the Bank has no record of communication in respect of allotment to the petitioner. It is also contended tha the Bank is an agent of HUDA and, therefore, the Bank was legally bound to serve the allotment letter to the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The judgment in Aruna Luthra’s case (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the date of issuance of allotment letter is not relevant and it is the date of its receipt, which is relevant, is not applicable in the facts of the present case. In the said case, the registered letter sent by HUDA was received by the allottee after 17 days and the the allottee has deposited the amount within 30 days of the receipt of the letter. It may be seen that Court has dismissed two other writ petitions in the said judgment itself for the reason, that the allottee has not deposited the amount within 30 days. It was held that deposit within 30 days alone concludes the contract and of sale. In the present case, the letter of allotment has been issued by the HUDA and the same was delivered to respondent No.6 – HDFC Ltd., as per the correspondence address mentioned in the application form submitted by the petitioner. Still further, the Chief Administrator in its order dated 11.06.2010 (Annexure P-10) has recorded a finding that in pursuance of letter dated 12.07.2005, the Bank has informed vide its letter dated 13.07.2005 that the petitioner has availed a loan of Rs.80,000/- for financing the earnest money payable to HUDA and that intimation regarding allotment of plot was sent to her by HDFC Bank by post. Thus, as far as the petitioner is concerned, there is nothing on record to infer that the petitioner was not informed. Thus, as far as the petitioner is concerned, there is nothing on record to infer that the petitioner was not informed. The averments in the written statement that the Bank is not able to produce record in respect of service of allotment letter does not lead to inference that the Bank has not informed the Petitioner of allotment. 7. There is nothing to show that the Bank was an agent of HUDA. The Bank had a relationship of borrower and lendor with the petitioner. The communication by HUDA to the Bank was not only in terms of the application form, but in terms of the loan as well settled by the petitioner with the Bank. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any default on the part of the HUDA in sending the letter of allotment to respondent No.6 – HDFC Ltd. 8. The argument that in terms of the policy dated 20.03.2007, it is the Chairman, HUDA, who can condone the delay up to one year, but the Chairman has not passed any order and it is the Chief Administrator, who declined the request for extension in time, is not tenable. In the order dated 11.06.2010 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, it is specifically mentioned that the competent authority i.e. Hon’ble Chief Minister, Haryana – cum- Chairman, HUDA has also agreed to the conclusion arrived at. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the orders dated 06.12.2004, 14.03.2006 and 11.06.2010 in respect of cancellation of allotment, which may warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court, as no concluded contract comes into existence in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaman Lal Singhal Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & others, [2009(2) Law Herald (SC) 1189] : 2009 (4) SCC 369. Dismissed. ----------------------