JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. K. K. Ojha, counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed for seeking a direction upon the respondents to allot quarter No. 1308, Type EF- 16 in Sector 12E, at Bokaro Steel City to the petitioner on long term lease under the "SAIL Scheme for leasing of Houses to Employees- 2001". 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the letter of allotment was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.01.2002, but he could not pay the amount because he had applied for loan from the respondents but the respondents did not sanction the loan and accordingly, he should not be punished for the non-action on the part of the respondents. 4. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that as per the letter dated 28.06.2002, the petitioner was supposed to deposit the remaining amount by 28.02.2002 and it was clearly mentioned that in absence of the payment of remaining amount, the earnest money will stand forfeited. 5. Counsel for the respondents also submits that it was for the petitioner to arrange the money and even if the allegation of the petitioner regarding sanction of loan is taken to be correct, then also as the petitioner could not arrange the money within the stipulated time as mentioned in letter dated 28.01.2002, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the quarter in question cannot be allotted to him. 6. Further, counsel for the respondents submits that the allotment letter was of the year, 2002 and the petitioner has moved this Court only in the year, 2009 and accordingly, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the letter of allotment to the petitioner was issued on 28.01.2002 with a clear stipulation that this letter of allotment is valid upto 28.02.2002, failing which claim of grant of long term lease would automatically stand cancelled and the earnest money shall stand forfeited. This Court finds that it was the responsibility of the petitioner to arrange the money and the petitioner has admittedly failed to arrange the money and pay as per the allotment order dated 28.01.2002 therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. 8. This Court finds that it was the responsibility of the petitioner to arrange the money and the petitioner has admittedly failed to arrange the money and pay as per the allotment order dated 28.01.2002 therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.