ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court seeking direction upon the respondent-Steel Authority of India and Bokaro Steel Plant to confirm the allotment earlier made in favour of the petitioner on old rates at which it was allotted for construction of Hotel. The petitioner has sought quashing of the letter dated 03.10.2002 by which the allotment has been withdrawn by the respondents. 3. The petitioner has tried to make out a case that area of 11.19 acres of lands belonging to the petitioner has been acquired by the respondents vide Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 17/19/20/21/32/34/37 of 1998 for establishment of Bokaro Steel Plant/Steel Authority of India. According to the petitioner, prior to the said acquisition, the Management-respondent Steel Authority of India/Bokaro Steel Plant has given assurance for rehabilitation of the land losers, who became displaced by the act of such acquisition of lands. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner was offered an area of 0.25 acres of land for establishment of a hotel on Plot No. NHP-2 situated in West of Co-operative Colony, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. The said allotment was made vide letter dated 07.07.1993 and for entering on lease in respect of the same land for a period of 33 years initially at Rs. 52,750/-for which earnest money of Rs. 5000/-was to be deposited. The petitioner had deposited earnest money of Rs. 5000/-and thereafter requested for acceptance of premium money and for giving possession of land in his favour vide letter dated 27.10.1997. Annexure-3 is one of such application of the petitioner. The respondent vide letter dated 26/31 July, 2000 informed the petitioner to accept the revised rate for allotment of the said plot. The petitioner, however, made a request for reconsideration of such decision to offer the piece of land on revised rate as according to him, several persons have been handed over possession of land on payment of old rates of premium and he had also not received any compensation against his land. However, according to the petitioner, despite his representation, respondents did not act upon it. However, according to the petitioner, despite his representation, respondents did not act upon it. He also approached the Deputy Commissioner on whose intervention, the respondents were once again asked to reconsider the aforesaid issue, but the petitioner was surprised to receive the letter dated 03.10.2002 by which offer of allotment of the petitioner's plot has been withdrawn as he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions stipulated in offer letter, which is Annexure-1to the writ petition. Thereafter, certain exchange of correspondences took place, but the matter could not be resolved. In such circumstances, the petitioner has been compelled to move this Court for the relief as prayed for. 5. The respondents in their counter affidavit have taken stand that the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 52,750/-against the allotment of plot vide letter dated 07.07.1993, Annexure-1 to the writ petition for construction of Hotel in conformity with the plan and the drawings approved by the City Planning Department of Steel Authority of India, Bokaro. The petitioner was asked to enter into the lease agreement after depositing of the premium amount as per the allotment letter. According to the respondents, the petitioner had failed to deposit the premium amount even after repeated indulgence and making correspondence. No payments were deposited even in the year 1995 and again in the October, 1997, he made another request for depositing the amount in one go and requested to regularize the said allotment on old rates. However, by October, 1997, new guidelines formulated by the Board of Directors of SAIL had come in operation whereby the land premium and the other charges were revised. On intervention of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, the petitioner was offered regularization of the allotment of the said plot subject to payment of land premium at the revised rate. This offer was not accepted by the petitioner and he insisted for regularization on old rates, which was not acceptable to the respondents. In the said circumstances, the allotment of plot of the petitioner was withdrawn vide letter dated 03.10.2002. The respondents have categorically denied the contention of the petitioner that the allotment was in any way connected with the rehabilitation against acquisition of his land. The matter of compensation as well as rehabilitation was under the jurisdiction of the State Government. The respondents-Company has nothing to do with it. The respondents have categorically denied the contention of the petitioner that the allotment was in any way connected with the rehabilitation against acquisition of his land. The matter of compensation as well as rehabilitation was under the jurisdiction of the State Government. The respondents-Company has nothing to do with it. In such circumstances, the respondents have tried to defend the impugned order, and submitted that the writ petition is without any merit. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the relevant materials available on records. The petitioner was an allottee by the letter dated 07.07.1993 for a piece of land in the respondent Bokaro Steel Plant/Steel Authority of India for construction of Hotel in the district of Bokaro. After depositing the amount of earnest money of Rs. 5,000/-, however, he failed to deposit the rest of the premium amount of Rs. 52,750/-for a number of years and subsequently the rate of lands were revised as per the guidelines of the Board of Directors by October, 1997. Even then, the petitioner was asked to deposit the revised rate for regularization for his allotment for entering into the lease agreement in respect of the land. The petitioner, however, kept on dithering in the matter and failed to deposit the amount in question. The respondents have, therefore, issued the impugned order dated 03.10.2002, Annexure-10 by which the allotment of the land has been cancelled for failure of terms and conditions of the allotment order. In these circumstances, therefore, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for directing the respondent for confirmation of the allotment in his favour or setting aside the impugned order dated 03.10.2002, he having himself failed to comply the terms and conditions of the allotment order of July, 1993 for a period of more than eight years. The respondents cannot be faulted for taking a decision for cancellation of allotment for violation of its terms and conditions. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.