JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J.: - The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 11.1.2005 and 5.11.2009 (Annexures P-7 and P-16, respectively) and a writ of mandamus to direct the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (for short ‘the GMADA’) to issue letter of intent to him for the allotment of a plot measuring 200 square yards. 2. The facts may be noticed briefly. 3. The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (for short ‘the PUDA’) (now represented by GMADA-respondent No.2) invited applications for allotment of 3950 free-hold residential plots in Sectors 76- 80 SAS Nagar Mohali for which the scheme opened on 27.11.2010. The applications were required to be submitted by 2.1.2001. There were 700 plots of 200 square yards size out of total 3950 plots. 4. The petitioner applied for a plot measuring 200 square yards and as per the draw of lots held in the year 2001, he was placed at Sr.No.6 amongst 57 applicants who were in the waiting list of General Category (for 200 square yards plots). The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 25.7.2003 (Annexure P-4) that if he wanted his name to be kept in waiting list, he should give his consent in writing as the land acquired for Sectors 76-80 was under litigation and PUDA was facing problem to allot plots to the successful applicants. The petitioner, vide his reply dated 4.8.2003 (annexure P-5) gave consent and asked the authorities to retain the earnest money of Rs.67000/- deposited by him with the application form and undertook not to claim any interest thereon. 5. The further case of the petitioner is that the applicants who are above him in the waiting list, i.e., at Sr.Nos.1 to 5 (except at Sr.No.4), have already been issued letters of intent and the person at Sr.No.4 of the waiting list was not issued such letter as presumably he did not give his consent or he was ineligible. According to the petitioner, one Ram Lal son of Piyara Lal who was at Sr.No.5 of the waiting list alongwith two more applicants bearing form Nos.8888 and 5026 was also declared ineligible, hence, he being the next applicant in the waiting list was entitled to be issued letter of intent against the available plot. The petitioner also gave a list of wait listed applicants to whom plots of different sizes like, 125, 150, 250, 400 & 500 square yards were allotted. The petitioner also gave a list of wait listed applicants to whom plots of different sizes like, 125, 150, 250, 400 & 500 square yards were allotted. 6. It is also the pleaded case of petitioner that only 697 plots of 200 square yard size were allotted though the number of plots offered by the PUDA were 700. 7. Another grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-authorities have permitted transfers of ‘letter of intent’ from original allottee to the re-allottee like in the case of Gaurav Joshi to whom letter of intent dated 11.1.2005 (Annexure P-7) has been issued in response to plot measuring 125 square yards which was originally in the name of Sadhu Ram son of Shri Dhanpat Ram. 8. Since the petitioner was not issued any letter of intent and he came to know that fresh draw of lots are being held, he approached this Court in CWP No.17206 of 2008 wherein vide interim order dated 17.2.2009 it was directed that the petitioner’s name shall also be included in the last draw of lots of General Category applicants of 200 square yard plots. The writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 27.5.2009, later on modified on 23.10.2009 directing the respondent-authorities to decide the petitioner’s claim by passing a speaking order. 9. It was pursuant thereto that GMADA passed a self speaking order dated 5.11.2009 (Annexure P-16) whereby claim of the petitioner has been turned down pointing out that his claim could at the best be considered for a plot measuring 200 square yard which was earlier allotted to one Narinder Singh who failed to deposit 15% of the allotment price within the stipulated period and letter of intent was cancelled. However, said Narinder Singh challenged the cancellation of allotment and his revision petition stood allowed by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 27.2.2007 and the letter of intent was accordingly restored in his favour. Thus, there was no vacant plot measuring 200 square yards available in the General Category for allotment to the petitioner. 10. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. 11. Thus, there was no vacant plot measuring 200 square yards available in the General Category for allotment to the petitioner. 10. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. 11. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 have filed their reply affidavits reiterating that after acceptance of the revision petition of Narinder Singh to whom the letter of intent has been restored on 7.5.2007, no other plot measuring 200 square yards was left unallotted in General category, hence the petitioner has no claim for allotment. It is further averred that the earnest money of Rs.67,000/- has already been refunded to the petitioner on 11.9.2008 and it has been duly credited in his account on 13.1.2009. 12. The petitioner, however, with a view to secure letter of intent, raised two additional pleas before this Court on 27.4.2012, namely, (i) two plots in the freedom fighters category have remained un-allotted and one of those could be allotted to him; (ii) against 700 offered plots, only 697 plots were actually allotted, hence, three plots measuring 200 square yards were still lying un-allotted. The respondents were accordingly directed to file affidavit regarding availability of above-stated plots. 13. Ms.Navjot Kaur, Estate Officer, GMADA, filed a detailed affidavit dated 10.5.2012 explaining that out of 700 plots measuring 200 square yards, there were 539 plots for General Category to which the petitioner belongs and all those plots have already been allotted. As regard to the plots in the reserved category of freedom fighters, para Nos.7 & 8 of the affidavit are to the following effect:- “...7. That the LOI draw was held on 28.3.2001 for all the 700 plots and the LOIs had been issued to 699 applicants as 1 applicant, form No.5026 in the freedom fighter category had intimated before the issuance of LOI but after holding of the LOI draw, that she had wrongly applied in the freedom fighter category and was not eligible to be considered in that category. 8. That since, there were only 14 applicants in the freedom fighters category and 14 plots had been reserved for them, all the 14 applicants had been made firm allocation. Since, no applicant in the freedom fighter category was available other than 14 applicants, no waiting list had been drawn in the freedom fighter category.......” 14. In para No.12 of the affidavit, Estate Officer has further clarified:- “12. Since, no applicant in the freedom fighter category was available other than 14 applicants, no waiting list had been drawn in the freedom fighter category.......” 14. In para No.12 of the affidavit, Estate Officer has further clarified:- “12. That had the number of the freedom fighters category before the LOI draw been found to be less than 14, the left over plots in this category also would have been transferred to the general category. But since all the 14 applicants had been made firm allocation of the plots, if any plot is left out in that category, it can only be allotted to a person belonging to that category.....” 15. The affidavit further explains that as per note (i) to para 1 (b) of the Information Brochure, the validity period of waiting list was two years which has already lapsed and merely because one or the other plots might have become available subsequently due to cancellation of LOI or surrender etc., the petitioner has got no legally vested right to seek allotment. 16. The Estate Officer has filed yet another affidavit dated 31.8.2012 taking the following plea:- “......6. That if the number of applications is less than the number of plots in any reserved category, then the surplus plots are transferred to the general category only. 7. That the terms and conditions of the brochure are silent on the plots found surplus after the LOI draw is held. Therefore, these plots cannot be directly transferred to the general category......” 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the record. 18. It is not in dispute that there were total 700 plots of 200 square yards out of which 539 plots were meant for General Category. The petitioner who belongs to General Category, was kept at Sr.No.6 in the waiting list. There is also no serious dispute that all the 539 plots of General Category have been allotted and the petitioner has no claim whatsoever against those plots. 19. The petitioner who belongs to General Category, was kept at Sr.No.6 in the waiting list. There is also no serious dispute that all the 539 plots of General Category have been allotted and the petitioner has no claim whatsoever against those plots. 19. As regard the plots reserved for freedom fighters, the authorities have explained that since the applications received against those plots were not less than the total plots of that reserved category, note (ii) of Clause I of “Mode of Allotment/payment” of the brochure was not invoked nor it could be invoked as it prescribed that “if the requisite number of applications are not received in a reserved category, the plots of that category shall be offered to the applicants belonging to the general category”. 20. It may be true that one of the applicant who applied in the reserved category of freedom fighters was ineligible and he withdrew his application subsequently but the fact remains that the said reserved plot could not be offered to General Category applicants at the time of draw of lots. A categoric stand taken by the authorities in their affidavit dated 31.8.2012 that wherever the terms and conditions of the brochure were silent in respect of the plots “found surplus after the LOI draw is held” such plots cannot be directly transferred to the General Category, has not been controverted by the petitioner with any instance where deviation was made. If the authorities have understood their policy in a particular manner and have applied it uniformly and indiscriminately, no fault can be found with their action. 21. That apart, we are of the considered view that the petitioner being in waiting list has got no indefeasible or vested right to seek allotment only because some plot(s) measuring 200 square yards also have become available after expiry of the prescribed validity period of the waiting list. Similarly, waiting list cannot be kept alive for an indefinite period, moreso, when its validity period of two years was expressly specified in the Information Brochure itself. 22. For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. ----------------------