JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the impugned orders dated 15.03.2013 (Annex.10) and 06.05.2014 (Annex.17) respectively. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent-Board floated a new land scheme in Pindwara, District Sirohi regarding development of a colony under Pindwara Housing Scheme 2008 (for short, 'Scheme'). Pursuant to the Scheme, the petitioner applied for a house/flat and thereupon she was communicated by letter dated 12.04.2010 that a house/flat has been reserved in her name under the MIG-A category and the petitioner was asked to deposit the requisite amount mentioned therein. Later on possession letter was also issued in the name of petitioner on 13.12.2011 and she was asked to deposit cost of the house amounting to Rs.6,70,708/- through demand draft/cheque along with the requisite documents. The petitioner was surprised when she went at the site that respondent-Board has not provided basic facilities like drinking water connection, sewerage line, electricity, road etc. for the colony, where the house/flat is located and there was a cause grievance about the quality of construction raised by the Board. It appears that besides petitioner, some other incumbents, who were allotted houses/flats under the Scheme, also ventilated their grievances in this behalf before the Board. For nonavailability of basic amenities necessary for dwelling, complaints were also laid under the Consumer Protection Act. 3. Be that as it may, in want of non-compliance of the demand notice allotment of the petitioner was cancelled by the Board vide order 15.03.2013. Subsequently, petitioner submitted her representation before the higher authority for revival of her allotment and the matter was reexamined by competent authority but the prayer for revival of allotment is declined by letter/communication dated 06.05.2014. Precisely, in the said letter also, Board has reiterated that the petitioner has not deposited the requisite amount and has not made compliance of the demand notice. It is in that background the petitioner has laid this petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. Precisely, in the said letter also, Board has reiterated that the petitioner has not deposited the requisite amount and has not made compliance of the demand notice. It is in that background the petitioner has laid this petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. At the outset, it may be observed that vide letter dated 13.12.2011 (Annex.3) the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.6,70,708/- within a period of three months and the said amount has not been deposited by the petitioner for almost fifteen months and that necessitated cancellation of her allotment by the impugned order dated 15.03.2013 (Annex.10). Before passing the cancellation order, the petitioner was also served notice dated 14.03.2012 (Annex.9). The recital contained in Annex. 10 reads as under:- dzekad %& vk0v0@2012@2287 fnukad 15-03-2013 dk;kZy; vkns'k ( iathdj.k@vkoaVu fujLrhdj.k ) 1- dqekjh thoh ckbZ iq=h Hks:yky th us lkekU;@fof'k"V@dYir: ;kstuk ds vUrxZr vkosnu i= dzekad 1498 }kjk o"kZ 13-12-11 esa ( vk; oxZ ) MIB A ds vUrxZr fi.MokM+k 'kgj gsrq iathdj.k djk;k FkkA ftldh ojh;rk@dksM uEcj SRS/2008/MIG A/G2/ORS/7 ij fu/kkZfjr gSA 2- fnukad 28-09-2010 dks vkoaVu ykVjh esa edku la0 1@71 ;kstuk dk uke fi.MokM+k esa vkoafVr gqvkA 3- vkoUVh dks vkoUVu@dCtk i= tkjh djus ds ckn jkf'k tek ugha djkus ij fMQkYVj uksfVl tkjh mijkUr foKkfIr izdk'ku ckn vkoUVu fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA rFkk fu;ekuqlkj tek jkf'k okil ykSVkus gsrq vyx ls dk;Zokgh dh tk jgh gSA ,lMh@& vkoklh; vfHk;Urk jktLFkku vkoklu e.My [k.M %& ikyh ekjokM+ " 6. After cancellation of allotment, the petitioner submitted representation and in pursuance thereof a benevolent gesture is shown by the Chief Estate Manager of the Board by its communication dated 23.09.2013 (Annex.13) for revival of her allotment. However, the competent authority after considering the matter objectively has found that no plausible ground is available for revival of allotment letter which has been cancelled for noncompliance of the allotment/possession letter and that being so, order dated 06.05.2014 (Annex.17) is passed. As a matter of fact the original cancellation order, which was passed in March, 2013 is sought to be challenged by the petitioner after a lapse of more than two and a half years and for which there is no plausible explanation. As a matter of fact the original cancellation order, which was passed in March, 2013 is sought to be challenged by the petitioner after a lapse of more than two and a half years and for which there is no plausible explanation. That apart, even against the order declining her prayer for revival of allotment, petitioner has preferred this writ petition after almost eighteen months. There is apparently nothing on record to show that respondent has committed any illegality in cancelling the allotment made to the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to deposit a requisite amount which she failed to deposit for more than one and a half years and even if after serving notice she has not made endeavour to deposit the amount. In this view of the matter, the conduct of the petitioner and the delay and laches on her part in laying this petition, has persuaded me not to interfere in the matter. 7. Consequently, petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed summarily.Writ petition dismissed. *******