ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Issue notice. Under the instruction of the court, Mr. P.C Sharma who appeared before the learned Single Bench on behalf of the Rajasthan Housing Board accepts the notice. 3. The grievance of the appellant is only with regard to the observation made by the learned Single Bench to the extent that:— “The petitioner has managed to stall the proceedings of allotment for a period of nearly six and half years by filing the instant writ petition and thus, if he still seeks allotment of the house in question, then he shall have to accede to the additional charges etc. which may be levied for the delay occasioned in payment towards the allotment as per the norms/policy decisions adopted by the Rajasthan Housing Board”. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant challenged the rate fixed by the Rajasthan Housing Board for extra land and Single Bench while issuing the notices to the respondents, restrained the Rajasthan Housing Board from cancelling the allotment of plot No. 2/75, New Residential Scheme, Suratgarh subject to deposit of Rs. 1 Lac with the Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, Hanumangarh. The amount aforesaid was deposited by the appellant within the period prescribed and as such, no loss at all was caused to the respondent Housing Board. It is further submitted that merely on the count that the appellant preferred a petition for writ and that remained pending for good six and half years due to procedure of the court, the appellant could not have been penalised. It is also asserted that in the entire proceedings, no adjournment was sought by or on behalf of the appellant-petitioner. 5. We have looked into the original record and we do not find any effort on the part of the appellant to cause delay in adjudication of the writ petition. It appears that the writ petition was listed before the learned Single Bench on several occasions but was not taken up for hearing. In this background, we are of the considered opinion that the observation made by the learned Single Bench as referred above is absolutely unwarranted. Hence, the same is expunged. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.