JUDGMENT Mr. Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.:- Civil Writ Petition No.19962 of 2010, ‘M/s Modern Photo Labs. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and another’ and Civil Writ Petition No.19963 of 2010, ‘M/s Modern Photo Labs. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and another’, involve common questions of fact and law and, therefore, are proposed to be disposed of together by this common order being passed in Civil Writ Petition No.19962 of 2010, M/s Modern Photo Labs. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and another. Facts have been taken from this writ petition. 2. The petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of a Koisk site measuring 2.75 X 2.75 square meters, at Old Judicial Complex, Gurgaon, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the site in question’) at Rs.1,50,000/-, in an open auction held on 19.12.1988. He deposited 10% of the bid amount as earnest money at the fall of the hammer and was issued a letter of allotment dated 27.02.1989 (Annexure P-2). As per terms and conditions of auction and Clause 4 of the letter of allotment, the petitioner was required to deposit 15% of the auction money, i.e., Rs.22,500/-, within 30 days from the date of acceptance of the bid. However, this amount was not deposited by the petitioner on the plea that the letter of allotment was received by the petitioner on 28.03.1989. On 07.06.1989, petitioner made a request (Annexure P-3) to the Estate Officer to accept 15% of the auction money, after condoning delay in its deposit. The request was not acceded to and allotment of the site, in question, in favour of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 25.01.1990 (Annexure P-4) for failure to make payment of 15% of bid money, in terms of Clause 4 of the letter of allotment. 3. To challenge order dated 25.01.1990 (Annexure P-4), petitioner has invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, by way of the instant writ petitions, filed on 09.11.2010. 4. A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been stated that as the petitioner has failed to deposit 15% of the bid amount, there was no concluded contract between the petitioner and the respondents and, as such, the allotment was cancelled in terms of Clause 4 of the letter of allotment. 4. A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been stated that as the petitioner has failed to deposit 15% of the bid amount, there was no concluded contract between the petitioner and the respondents and, as such, the allotment was cancelled in terms of Clause 4 of the letter of allotment. It is also stated that the petitions suffer from delay and latches as the order dated 25.01.1990 has been challenged in the year 2010, i.e., after more than 20 years of passing of the order dated 25.01.1990. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the letter of allotment dated 27.02.1989 (Annexure P-2) having been received by the petitioner on 28.03.1989, the 15% of auction money could not be deposited within the stipulated time and the request of the petitioner for condoning the delay made, vide representation dated 07.06.1989, has not been taken into consideration and the order dated 25.01.1990 (Annexure P-4) for cancellation of allotment has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’), on 14.08.2001, which was accepted vide order dated 17.08.2001 (Annexure P-8) but in appeal filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’), by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short ‘the HUDA’), the order of District Forum has been set aside vide order dated 24.06.2010 (Annexure P-10) and it has been held that the fora under the Consumer Protection Act, have no jurisdiction in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as the appeal having been disposed by the State Commission on 24.06.2010 (Annexure P-10), the instant writ petition cannot be said to be suffered from delay and latches. The contention, however, is without substance. 7. Admittedly, the 15% of the bid money was to be deposited by the petitioner within 30 days from the date of auction. It was so mentioned in Clause 7 of the terms and conditions of the auction (Annexure P-1) and Clause 4 of the letter of allotment dated 27.02.1989 (Annexure P-2). The contention, however, is without substance. 7. Admittedly, the 15% of the bid money was to be deposited by the petitioner within 30 days from the date of auction. It was so mentioned in Clause 7 of the terms and conditions of the auction (Annexure P-1) and Clause 4 of the letter of allotment dated 27.02.1989 (Annexure P-2). It was clearly stated in the aforesaid two clauses that in the event of failure of the petitioner to deposit 15% of the auction money within the stipulated period, the allotment would be cancelled and the 10% of the bid money deposited at the time of auction would be forfeited to the HUDA. That being the situation, receipt of the letter of allotment on 28.03.1989 was inconsequential and in the situation, the Estate Officer was left with no other option but to order cancellation of the allotment. 8. As regards, the non-affording of opportunity of hearing, suffice it to refer to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case titled Chaman Lal Singhal Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, [2009(2) Law Herald (SC) 1189 : 2009(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1014] : 2009(2) R.C.R. (Civil), 355, wherein allotment has been cancelled on account of non-deposit of 15% of the auction money within the stipulated period. Neither the principles of natural justice are liable to be observed nor provisions of Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 are attracted. 9. Even otherwise the order of cancellation of allotment was passed on 25.01.1990 and the instant petition has been filed in the year 2010, i.e., after the lapse of more than 20 years. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been litigating before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora is of no help to the petitioner insofar as even complaint before the District Forum was filed on 14.08.2001 i.e. after more than 11 years of passing of the order of cancellation dated 25.01.1990 (Annexure P-4). The petitions, therefore, suffer from delay and latches. 10. In this situation, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of cancellation of allotment. The petitions, therefore, fail and are dismissed, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.