ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Shop No.6 at Dalmiya Koop under the Madhupur Nagar Parishad allotted in the name of the petitioner after the death of her husband, late Basudeo Jha, was cancelled by the impugned order dated 24.1.2011(Annexure-4) bearing letter no. 161/6-5 by the Respondent No.4, Executive Officer, Madhupur Municipality on failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the outstanding arrears of Rs. 13726/-for the period May 2004 till March 2010 and April 2010 to December 2010 within the time stipulated as per the notice at Annexure-2 dated 24.12.2010. 3. Petitioner has vainly tried to make out a case that her overture to deposit the arrear though beyond the stipulated 3 days time was not entertained by the Respondents who wanted to favour some other person by cancelling the allotment of her shop. That however is a disputed question of fact when no private Respondent has either been impleaded as party in the matter. After cancellation of her allotment she has approached this Court almost after 2 years 11 months in December, 2013. 4. Respondent No. 4 through their counter affidavit have contested the plea of the petitioner. It has been stated that petitioner did not take pains to pay the rent of the allotted shop no.6 over a long period of time resulting in huge arrear of rent. The Municipality gave her time again and asked her to deposit her arrears without any delay as per Annexure-2, notice which she failed to act upon. The allotment of shop therefore has been cancelled as the action of the petitioner was completely in teeth of the conditions of allotment. It has been further stated that after the cancellation of the allotment, the shop has been allotted to some other deserving person. 5. Petitioner, as indicated herein above, failed to implead the person in whose favour the shop has been allotted after cancellation of allotment of the petitioner. There is unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in preferring the writ petition, which may have resulted in creation of third party right. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however submitted orally that the shop has not been allotted to any one else. No categorical reply to the averments in the counter affidavit dated 25.6.2014 has been made through any rejoinder thereafter. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however submitted orally that the shop has not been allotted to any one else. No categorical reply to the averments in the counter affidavit dated 25.6.2014 has been made through any rejoinder thereafter. 7. In such circumstances, upon consideration of the merits of the case, the order of cancellation does not appear to suffer from infirmity of law and on facts. However, petitioner may request for allotment of the shop in question, if not allotted in favour of any one else, of course after compliance of the required conditions and any other conditions imposed by the Respondents for such consideration. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly without interfering in the matter.