JUDGMENT RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. Rule. Learned Counsel, Shri M. B. Gandhi, waives service of notice of rule for respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner in respect of the allotment of the Plot No.G-2135 at Lodhika Road, G.I.D.C., Rajkot. 3. Few facts with sequence of events are required to be mentioned. The petitioner was allotted plot bearing No. G-2135 at Lodhika Road, G.LD.C., Rajkot by the respondent No. 1-Corporation on 14-7-1997. However, the petitioner due to ill-health could not arrange for the finance and could not pay the installments leading to the recovery of the possession by the G.I.D.C. However, when the petitioner improved his health and financial condition requested the respondent No. 1-G.LD.C. to restore the possession of the plot. As the same was not considered, a petition being Special Civil Application No. 6217 of 2011 came to be filed and the High Court passed an order dated 5-10-2011 issuing direction for restoration of the possession subject to the condition including the payment of price with 20% premium. However, the respondent No. 1-G.LD.C. rejected the application for restoration relying upon the policy dated 9-12-2009 and the demand draft sent by the petitioner was also returned. Therefore, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Shri M. R. Bhatt for the petitioner and learned Counsel, Shri M. B. Gandhi for the respondent No. 1-G.LD.C.. 5. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Bhatt referred to the papers including the correspondences at Annexures-G & H and also the order passed by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 6217 of 2011 produced at Annexure-F. He submitted that though the plot is available, the request of the petitioner is turned down by the respondent No. 1-G.I.D.C. only on the ground of delay as well as relying upon the policy dated 9-12-2009. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Bhatt strenuously submitted that said circular dated 9-12-2009 is also produced on record, which refers to the policy for restoration of the plot. He submitted that as provided, the respondent G.LD.C. after taking over the possession requires to dispose of the plot if the alternative allotment is not made and if the original allottee make an application then, it could be restored back. He submitted that as provided, the respondent G.LD.C. after taking over the possession requires to dispose of the plot if the alternative allotment is not made and if the original allottee make an application then, it could be restored back. He also referred to the circular dated 21-3-2005 and submitted that subsequently policy vide circular dated 9-12-2009 would not be attracted as the petitioner had already requested the respondent No. l-G.LD.C. that the petitioner is willing to take back the possession on payment of dues and also subject to any other conditions. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Bhatt submitted that refusal for the reallotment and rejection of the application made by the petitioner relying upon such policy dated 9-12-2009 is erroneous and also arbitrary and illegal. He emphasized that when the High Court had passed an order in Special Civil Application No. 6217 of 2011 dated 5-10-2011, the respondent No.1 - Corporation ought to have complied with the same subject to the directions regarding the payment of premium and outstanding amount. He therefore submitted that such stand is not only unjustified, but it is contrary to the direction of the High Court. He pointedly referred to the reference of the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 6217 of 2011 and submitted that as the petitioner was ready and willing to comply with the same, the application could not have been rejected, however under misconception relying upon circular/policy dated 9-12-2009, such a prayer has been refused and it has been recorded that the possession of the plot was taken back by the respondent-Corporation in 1997 and application for restoration was made on 3-9-2009 after ten years, and therefore, as per policy of the respondent No. 1-Corporation, the request cannot be entertained. 6. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Bhatt however submitted that the respondent No. 1-Corporation cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold, and also adopt policy of pick and choose. He pointedly referred to the Annexure-H and submitted that there are other plots where after 9, 10 and 16 years of surrendering the plot, the possession has been restored. He submitted that in those cases, no- such policy comes in the way and in the case of the petitioner, in spite of the order of the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 6217 of 2011, the request is refused, and therefore, the present petition may be allowed. He submitted that in those cases, no- such policy comes in the way and in the case of the petitioner, in spite of the order of the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 6217 of 2011, the request is refused, and therefore, the present petition may be allowed. He has also referred to and relied upon the order of the High Court (Coram: Akil Kureshi, J.) in Special Civil Application No. 13482 of 2010 dated 1-12-2010 in identical situation with regard to the restoration of the possession of the plot and submitted that their stand was different and learned Counsel has stated that if the Court directs on payment of the amount, the petitioner therein could be put back the possession of the plot. He therefore submitted that the present petitioner may also be allowed on the sale line. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel, Shri Gandhi for the respondent No. 1-G.LD.C. referred to the papers and submitted that the plot was allotted in the year 1997, thereafter, as the petitioner made default in making payment, the possession was taken back by G.LD.C.. He submitted that in respect of the plot, for which, the possession has been taken back in the year 1999, the restoration is sought to be obtained after ten years by making an application for taking back the possession. He submitted that the policy has been framed for such purpose dated 9-12-2009, which is also referred to by the petitioner themselves and it is evident from the communication addressed to the petitioner dated 19th October, 2011 at Annexure-G that such prayer after ten years cannot be entertained relying upon such policy. Learned Counsel, Shri Gandhi submitted that the policy was that if the party had made a default and even after taking back the possession if the party is ready to make the payment and if the plot is available within a period of five years, it could be considered. Learned Counsel, Shri Gandhi submitted that as it is after about ten years, such a request cannot be entertained, and therefore, the present petition may not be entertained. 8. In view of these rival submissions, moot question which requires to be considered is whether the policy dated 9-12-2009 would be attracted to the facts of the present case. Learned Counsel, Shri Gandhi submitted that as it is after about ten years, such a request cannot be entertained, and therefore, the present petition may not be entertained. 8. In view of these rival submissions, moot question which requires to be considered is whether the policy dated 9-12-2009 would be attracted to the facts of the present case. Further even after such policy if the request for restoration has been considered for others, which has been pointedly referred to by learned Senior Counsel, Shri Bhatt referring to Annexure-H, it is required to be considered whether the respondent No. 1-Corporation is required to follow the policy consistently. 9. As it transpires, the petitioner was allotted plot in the year 1997, thereafter, as he failed to pay the dues of the Corporation, plot was recovered in the year 1999. However, an application for restoration of possession was made by the petitioner vide application dated 3-9-2009, meaning thereby, the application of the petitioner dated 3-9-2009 was before the policy dated 9-12-2009 came into force. Further, admittedly plot is available. Moreover, even after the application was made on 3-9-2009, the petitioner made further request subsequently also and when it was not considered, a petition being Special Civil Application No. 6217 of 2011 came to be filed and the High Court (Coram: Abhilasha Kumari, J.) vide order dated 5-10-2011 directed the respondent No. 1-Corporation to consider the request subject to the condition regarding the payment of the outstanding amount and 20% premium. It is in this backgl0und when the plot is available and when the direction has been given by the High Court to consider the application, the claim of the petitioner was required to be considered and could not have been refused or rejected resorting to the policy dated 9-12-2009. Further, the communication by the GJ.D.C. dated 9th October, 2011 at Annexure-G refusing to consider the request even after the order of the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 6217 of 2011 clearly refers to this fact that the direction is to be considered and the application dated 3-9-2009 of the petitioner ought to have been decided. In this communication, the respondent No. 1 has resorted to the policy that any such request beyond a period of five years cannot be considered. In this communication, the respondent No. 1 has resorted to the policy that any such request beyond a period of five years cannot be considered. Again it has not been passed taking into consideration the direction of the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 6217 of 2011 inasmuch as if that was objection, it would have been resisted at that time. In spite of that, when the direction is given to consider the case for restoration on payment and when the plot is available, the application could not have been rejected resorting to the policy dated 9-12-2009. Further, as could be seen from the document produced at Annexure-H, upon which reliance has been placed by learned Counsel, Shri Bhatt on other cases, there is a specific details with regard to other plots, which have been taken back in the same manner years back and the restoration of the plot has been made after a long period including 7 to 10 years. Therefore, in case of the possession taken in respect of the plot in the year 1988, 1999 or 1993, the possession is restored after 16 years and 10 years etc. Moreover, an order of the High Court in another Special Civil Application No. 13482 of 201 0 dated 1-12-2010 (Coram : Abhilasha Kumari, J.) would make the position clear that in that case Counsel for the respondent No. 1-G.I.D.C. had stated that the plot is available and as per the policy if the Court directs the petitioner therein could be put back in the possession. 10. In the facts of the present case also, since the plot is available and the petitioner has shown willingness •to repay the amount including even premium as per the order passed by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 6217 of 2011, the application of the petitioner ought to have been considered favourably. The present petition deserves to be allowed. 11. In the circumstances, the present petition stands allowed. The impugned order/communication dated 19-10-2011 (Annexure-G) passed by the respondent-Corporation is hereby quashed and set aside. The present petition deserves to be allowed. 11. In the circumstances, the present petition stands allowed. The impugned order/communication dated 19-10-2011 (Annexure-G) passed by the respondent-Corporation is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 1 is directed to restore the possession of Plot No. G-2135 at Lodhika Road, G. I. D. C., Rajkot on parity with other cases as discussed above within a period of four weeks subject to payment of outstanding amount and 20 % premium as directed by the High Court as per the larder passed in Special Civil Application No. 6217 of 2011 dated 5-10-2011. 12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted. Petition allowed.