JUDGMENT By Court-This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 7.5.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.4 of 2012 in and by which the writ petition filed by the appellant, seeking certain direction upon the respondents to lease Quarter no.2127, Sector- IVF was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 2. The appellant was posted as doctor in Bokaro General Hospital. The respondents have floated a Scheme on 1.9.2001 for leasing the houses to the employees and pursuant to the said Scheme the appellant applied for lease of the quarter no.2127/IVF, Category/Type-C along with the earnest money of Rs.22,000/- vide bank draft and the same was duly accepted by the respondents on 25.9.2001. Thereafter, the respondents published a list of leased quarters to whom the quarter has been leased and the name of the appellant finds place in serial no.2511 against Quarter no. no.2127/IVF, Category/Type-C. 3. The case of the appellant is that the appellant had deposited earnest money of Rs.22,000/-on 25.9.2001 and even though his name appeared at serial no.2511 and inspite of number of representations of the appellant, the respondents are not entering any agreement with him for leasing out the quarter in his favour. The petitioner-appellant, therefore, filed the writ petition, seeking for a direction upon the respondents to execute lease deed for quarter no.2127/IVF, Category/Type-C. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the scheme itself was closed in the year 2003 and though the name of the appellant appeared in the list (in serial no.2511) but no allotment letter was issued to the appellant. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner-appellant had chosen to sit over the matter for a long time and approached the Court in the year 2012 after a period of nine years from the closing of the scheme itself and hence not entitled to seek any direction upon the respondents. 4. Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has not kept in view the arbitrariness of the respondents in not issuing the letter of allotment in favour of the appellant. 4. Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has not kept in view the arbitrariness of the respondents in not issuing the letter of allotment in favour of the appellant. The learned counsel submitted that even though the appellant had deposited the requisite earnest money of Rs.22,000/-on 25.9.2001 and even though the name of the appellant appeared at serial no.2511 in the list of the persons who have been shortlisted for allotment of the leased quarters, the respondents were not justified in not executing agreement with the appellant for leasing out the quarter in his favour and, therefore, seeks for setting aside the order passed in W.P.(C)No.04 of 2012. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appellant was never issued any allotment letter and mere payment of the earnest money would not entitle the appellant for allotment of quarter on lease and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 6. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials on record. It is a matter of record that the appellant has only deposited the earnest money of Rs.22,000/-on 25.9.2001. According to the respondents, after issuance of the allotment orders, the allottees are supposed to make full payment within three months and to execute the agreement in the prescribed manner. 7. According to the appellant, even though his name appeared in serial no.2511 in the list of the persons who have been shortlisted for allotment of the leased quarters, no allotment order was issued to the appellant, therefore, the appellant could not take further steps. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the scheme was closed in the year 2003 itself, if really the allotment order was not issued to the appellant, the appellant should have taken appropriate steps then and there. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant had chosen to sit over the matter for a long time and approached the Court in the year 2012, nearly after a period of nine years from closing of the scheme. Further, mere payment of earnest money would not itself confer any right upon the appellant. 9. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant had chosen to sit over the matter for a long time and approached the Court in the year 2012, nearly after a period of nine years from closing of the scheme. Further, mere payment of earnest money would not itself confer any right upon the appellant. 9. In these facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition and we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has superannuated about three months ago. 11. There being no merit, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.