Judgment : 1. Heard Sri Amit Manohar, Advocate for the appellant. None is present on behalf of respondents though this appeal has been called twice. In the circumstances, we proceed ex-parte to decide this appeal. 2. This appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure code (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C') has arisen from the judgement and decree dated 22.8.2000 and 1.9.2000 respectively, passed by Sri Hari Singh, IInd Additional Civil Jude, Senior Division, Ghaziabad in Original Suit No.332 of 1995. The court below has decreed the suit and by making declaration that letter dated 20.2.1995, issued by defendant-appellant cancelling plot No. 67 black ''G' Sector 18, Noida (hereinafter referred to as "disputed plot") is illegal, inoperative and void. Plaintiff is lawful allottee having completed all formalities. It has further granted a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant/ appellant from alloting disputed plot to any other person. 3. The suit was filed by plaintiff-respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, stating that defendant-appellant is a body corporate under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Area, Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1976") and is engaged in development of area known as NOIDA. In 1994 it announced a scheme of small commercial plots known as "Mansarover Commercial Centre" in Sector 18, Noida, 1994 and invited applications from General Public. The plaintiff-respondents jointly applied for allotment of a plot of 60 Sq. mtr under the aforesaid scheme and deposited Rs.40,000/- as registration fee and Rs.1000/- as processing charges. Plot No.47 in Block ''G' Sector 18, Noida measuring 60 Sq.Yds was allotted to plaintiff-respondents by defendant-appellant vide letter dated 30.11.1994. Plaintiffs were required to deposit a sum of Rs.2,15,060/- within 30 days of the said letter. On account of some unavoidable difficulties the amount could not be deposited within 30 days i.e by 13.2.1995. Subsequently, plaintiff-respondents deposited the amount along with interest of Rs. 4940/. Plaintiffs then requested defendant for execution of deed of lease and delivery of possession of plot but nothing was done and plaintiffs received a letter dated 20.2.1995, alleging that the allotment made in favour of plaintiffs has been cancelled on the ground that requisite amount of Rs. 2,15,060/- was not deposited within stipulated time. 4940/. Plaintiffs then requested defendant for execution of deed of lease and delivery of possession of plot but nothing was done and plaintiffs received a letter dated 20.2.1995, alleging that the allotment made in favour of plaintiffs has been cancelled on the ground that requisite amount of Rs. 2,15,060/- was not deposited within stipulated time. It is said that the aforesaid cancellation is illegal and void, inasmuch as, the amount was deposited with interest; the letter dated 20.2.1995 was not issued by competent person; time of deposit cannot be said to be an essential part of contract and in respect of some other persons deposit of requisite amount has been accepted after expiry of the stipulated period. 4. The defendant-appellant contested the suit by filing written statement wherein allotment of plot in favour of plaintiff vide letter dated 30.11.1994 was admitted but it was subject to the condition that balance amount of Rs.2,15,060/- would be deposited within 30 days of issue of allotment letter i e by 25.12.1994. Challan to deposit the aforesaid money was also sent to plaintiff with allotment letter. Since the said amount was not paid within time, the same was cancelled by letter dated 20.2.1995. It is also stated that on 13.2.1995, plaintiff deposited Rs.2,15,060/- but it was not accepted and returned to the plaintiff vide letter dated 20.2.1995. However, a draft of Rs. 2,22,000/- was again submitted by plaintiff on 28.3.1995 which was returned by the office vide letter dated 29.4.1995. Since plaintiff has committed breach of condition of allotment, the same has been cancelled validly. 5. Trial Court formulated following five issues:- 1& D;k izfroknh dk i= fnukWd 20&2&85 ds }kjk iz'uxr IykV dk vkoaVu fujLr fd;k] voS/kkfud ,oa 'kwU; gS\ 2& D;k okn esa m0iz0 vkS|ksfxd {ks= fodkl vf/kfu;e 1976 ds izko/kku ckf/kr gSa\ 3& D;k okn esa /kkjk&34] 38 ,oa 41 fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k ls ckf/kr gS\ 4& D;k okn vYiewY;kafdr gS vkSj ns; U;k;'kqYd vi;kZIr gS\ 5& vU; vuqrks"k ftls oknh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\^^ Whether cancellation of allotment of disputed plot vide defendant letter dated 20.2.1985 is illegal and void ? (1) Whether the suit is barred by provision of U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 ? (2) Whether the suit is barred by sections 34,38 and 41 of Specific Relief Act. (3) Whether his suit is under valid and the court fee paid is insufficient. (1) Whether the suit is barred by provision of U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 ? (2) Whether the suit is barred by sections 34,38 and 41 of Specific Relief Act. (3) Whether his suit is under valid and the court fee paid is insufficient. (4) The other relief which the plaintiff is entitled. (English translation by Court) 6. While considering issue 1, the Trial Court recorded a finding that requisite amount was not deposited by plaintiff-respondents within time and subsequent deposits made were returned by defendant. However, the defendant in respect of plot No. J-18, Sector -18 accepted late deposit and restored allotment without assailing any reason therefor and hence, otherwise treatment with plaintiff-respondents was arbitrary and without basis. It thus answered issue 1 in favour of plaintiff. 7. Issue 2 was answered in negative and against the defendant, since it could not show how the suit was barred by provisions of Act, 1976. Issue 3 was also answered against defendant -appellant holding that suit was not shown to be barred by sections 34,38 and 41 of Specific Relief Act and ultimately on the basis of findings recorded on issue 1, the suit was decreed. 8. Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for appellant contended, when the condition of allotment was not observed, defendant-appellant was well within its right to cancel allotment and no relief, therefore, could have been granted in favour of plaintiffs-respondents. He further pointed out that reasons of delayed payment accepted in respect of three other plots were duly given in para 1 of additional written statement ( since this fact in paragraph 14A of the plaint was inserted by way of amendment) but this aspect has not been considered by court below. It has simply observed that those allottees made delayed payment with 24% interest which were accepted while plaintiff-defendants also made payment with interest but it was not accepted. He submitted that interest paid by plaintiff was not @ Rs.24% and therefore, his case was not similarly placed with other three persons. He further relied on a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Ravi Gautam Vs. He submitted that interest paid by plaintiff was not @ Rs.24% and therefore, his case was not similarly placed with other three persons. He further relied on a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Ravi Gautam Vs. State of U.P and others, ( 2015 (1) ADJ 129 (DB) ) wherein this Court has said that, the condition of allotment with regard to deposit of balance amount if not adhered and observed strictly, within time, letter of allotment would stood cancelled automatically and allottee cannot claim any right to continue with allotment rights subject to late payment. In the aforesaid decision, this Court also considered that there cannot be any parity to claim something which is contrary to law and not warranted. In the circumstances, article 14 of Constitution, in such matters, does not apply. 9. The only point for determination for deciding this appeal is "whether plaintiff- respondent 1 had any right of continuance of allotment, even if it has not paid requisite amount within time mentioned in the allotment letter" and "whether court below was justified in deciding issue 1 in favour of plaintiff-respondents." 10. We proceed to consider both the above points together. 11. From the judgment of Trial Court, it is evident that letter of allotment was issued to plaintiff on 30.11.1994, whereby he was supposed to make payment of Rs. 2,15,060/ within 30 days i.e 30.12.1994. This amount of Rs.2,15,060/- constituted only 25% of total amount which the plaintiff was required to pay. Letter of allotment also mentioned that in case 25% amount is not deposited within 30 days, registration fee deposited shall stand forfeited. Allotment letter dated 30.11.1995 25-C shows that total cost of 60 sq.mtr land, allotted to plaintiff-respondents was Rs.10,20,000/-. 25% constitutes Rs.2,55,000/- out of which, Rs. 40,000/- was alrady paid by plaintiff as registration fee. Therefore, he was required to deposit Rs. 2,15,000/- further so as to make 25% payment of total consideration. Rs.60/- was service charge. The letter further says. Allotment letter dated 30.11.1995 25-C shows that total cost of 60 sq.mtr land, allotted to plaintiff-respondents was Rs.10,20,000/-. 25% constitutes Rs.2,55,000/- out of which, Rs. 40,000/- was alrady paid by plaintiff as registration fee. Therefore, he was required to deposit Rs. 2,15,000/- further so as to make 25% payment of total consideration. Rs.60/- was service charge. The letter further says. ^^vkils vuqjks/k gS fd dze la[;k 7 o 8 ij bafxr jkf'k :i;s 2]15]060&00 bl i= dh frfFk ls 30 fnu ds vUnj layXu pkyku ds }kjk vo'; tek dj nsaA okafNr /kujkf'k le; ls tek u djkus dh n'kk esa ;g vkoaVu Lor% jn~n ekuk tks;xk rFkk fo'ks"k fu;e o 'krsZ dh /kkjk la0 4 ds vUrxZr iathdj.k jkf'k tCr dj yh tk;sxhA^ "You are requested to deposit the amount Rs.2,15,060/- as indicated at serial No.7 and 8 through the challan enclosed with the letter, within 30 days. In case non deposit of requite amount within stipulated time, then allotment shall stand automatically cancelled and registration amount shall be forfeited as envisage in Section 4 of Special Rules and condition."(English translation by Court) 12. Remaining 75% amount i.e Rs.7,65,000/- was payable in half yearly equal installments commencing from 27.5.1995. Plaintiff, thereafter sent pay order of Rs.2,22,000/- along with his letter dated 13.2.1995 which was returned to him by defendant- appellant vide letter dated 20.2.1995 with further intimation that his allotment is being cancelled and registration fee of Rs.40000/- stands forfeited. The plaintiff again submitted bank draft of Rs. 2,22,000/- along with letter dated 28.3.1995 but it was also returned vide letter dated 29.4.1995, intimating plaintiff-defendant that his allotment has already been cancelled and registration fee forfeited . 13. Vide paper No.71Ga it has been brought to our notice that condition No.4 clearly provides that no extension of time for depositing 25% amount shall be allowed and in case payment is not made within time, registration charge shall be forfeited. 13. Vide paper No.71Ga it has been brought to our notice that condition No.4 clearly provides that no extension of time for depositing 25% amount shall be allowed and in case payment is not made within time, registration charge shall be forfeited. It reads as under:- 4^^ ;fn vkoaVu fd'rksa ij gS rks fu;r ewY; dk 25 izfr'kr vkoaVu i= dh frfFk ls 30 fnu ds vUnj tek djuk gksxkA bl 25 izfr'kr esa iathdj.k jkf'k dks lek;ksftr fd;k tk;sxkA blds fy, dksbZ le;o`f) ugha nh tk;sxh ¼psd Lohdk;Z ugh gksxsa½ ns; jkf'k vkoaVu i= esa mYysf[kr cSad 'kk[kkvksa esa tek dh tk;sxhA mDr jkf'k dks le; ls u tek djkus ij 40000@& :i;s dh iathdj.k jkf'k tCr dj yh tk;sxhA "If allotment is on instalment, 25% of the prize fixed shall have to be deposited within 30 days from the allotment letter. Registration amount shall be adjusted in this 25% amount. For this purpose no extension of time shall be granted. (Cheque will not be accepted.) The amount payable shall be deposited in the branch of the Bank mentioned in allotment letter. In case of none deposit of the aforesaid amount within time, registration amount of Rs.40,000/- shall be forfeited." (Translation by Court) 14. It is thus clear that as per condition of the allotment time for deposit of 25% amount was essential and no extension was permissible. In respect of remaining 75% of amount, if there is any delay, clause 5 permits acceptance of delayed payment with interest of 24% but such condition was not applicable for initial payment of 25% it leads to the conclusion that an allottee, if fails to deposit 25% of amount within stipulated period, no extension of time or acceptance of delayed payment with interest was permissible under the terms of "allotment" and allotment of land would automatically stand cancelled resulting in consequence of forfeiture of registration fee, already paid . 15. In these circumstances, plaintiff-respondent 1 was not entitled for acceptance of delayed payment with some interest as he thought fit to offer. 16. It is true that in three other matters, defendant-appellant admitted belated payment with 24% interest and restored allotment but this act of defendant- appellant in respect of even those allottees was patently illegal, since it was not permissible under the terms of allotment to which defendant-appellant was bound to adhere and observe without any exception. 17. 16. It is true that in three other matters, defendant-appellant admitted belated payment with 24% interest and restored allotment but this act of defendant- appellant in respect of even those allottees was patently illegal, since it was not permissible under the terms of allotment to which defendant-appellant was bound to adhere and observe without any exception. 17. The apex Court in R. D. Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority 1979(3)SCC 488 has held that a public authority if has laid down certain norms and conditions to be observed, it is bound to adhere the same and cannot violate in any individual matter. Since others are not before us or their restoration of allotment is not under challenge, therefore, no order can be passed by this Court against them but claim of plaintiff- respondents for extension of same illegality in his case is nothing but a demand of parity in respect of illegal acts which cannot be done or permitted. 18. It is well settled that two wrongs will not make one right. (See State of Bihar and Others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another [ AIR 2000 SC 2306 ]; Union of India and another Vs. International Trading Co. and another [ AIR 2003 SC 3983 ]; Lalit Mohan Pandey Vs. Pooran Singh and others [ AIR 2004 SC 2303 ]; M/s Anand Buttons Ltd. Etc. Vs. State of Haryana and others [ AIR 2005 SC 565 ]; and Kastha Niwarak G.S.S. Maryadit, Indore Vs. President, Indore Development Authority [ AIR 2006 SC 1142 ]). 19. A Division Bench of this Court (of which I was also a member) in Special Appeal No. 375 of 2005 (Shiv Raj Singh Ydav Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 27.05.2011, has considered this aspect in detail and in paragraph no. 22 it held: "22. Once it is established that the petitioner had no legal right of regularisation, merely because some irregularities and illegalities have been observed by the respondents in some other cases with respect to regularisation, that would not confer any right upon the petitioner to claim parity. The right of equality under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a positive concept and not a negative one. (See Post Master General, Kolkata and others Vs. Tutu Das [ 2007(5) SCC 317 ]; Punjab National Bank by Chairman and Anr. Vs. The right of equality under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a positive concept and not a negative one. (See Post Master General, Kolkata and others Vs. Tutu Das [ 2007(5) SCC 317 ]; Punjab National Bank by Chairman and Anr. Vs. Astamija Dash [ AIR 2008 SC 3182 ]; Punjab State Electricity Board and others Vs. Gurmail Singh [ 2008 (7) SCC 245 ]; M/s Laxmi Rattan Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others [2009 (1) SCC 565]; Panchi Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and others [ 2009 (2) SCC 589 ]; State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh [ 2009 (5) SCC 65 ]; State of Uttranchal Vs. Alok Sharma and others [JT 2009 (6) SC 463]; State of Punjab and another Vs. Surjit Singh and others [ 2009 (11) SCALE 149 ]; State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai [2009 (11) SCALE 619]; Shanti Sports Club and another Vs. Union of India and others [ 2009 (11) SCALE 731 ]; Ghulam Rasool Lone Vs. State of J&K and others [JT 2009 (13) SC 422]." 20. We find that this Court has also made a similar observation in Ravi Gautam Vs. State of U.P and other (supra). In para 17 of the judgment, the court has said. "In the aforesaid case also issuance of allotment letter and cancellation of plot was involved. In that case also extension of time was granted to the allottee for depositing the amount, which he failed to avail even within the extended time. Same is the case before us. First writ petition was rejected by the High Court. Second writ petition filed by the allottee was allowed by the High Court, which was challenged before the Apex Court and while setting aside the judgement of the High Court, the observation as noted in para 8 were made by the Hon'ble apex Court. Now it is the settled law of the land that a particular order in case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. Any order in favour of the other persons might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. Any order in favour of the other persons might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order." (Emphasis added) 21. The above discussion leads to the inescapable conclusion that plaintiffs-respondents were not entitled to continue his right of allotment having failed to deposit requisite 25% despite initial deposit within stipulated period. Issue 1 before court below has not been decided correctly by Trial Court. In the result both the points are answered against plaintiff-respondent 1 in favour of appellant. 22. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgement dated 22.8.2000 and decree dated 1.9.2000 passed by IInd Additional Civil Judge, Ghaziabad is hereby set aside. The original suit of plaintiff-respondents is also hereby dismissed. 23. The defendant-appellant shall be entitled to cost throughout.