JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. Pooja Kumari, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Ramit Satender, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner for quashing the order issued vide memo no.09/MD/Cell dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Managing Director, Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority which in turn has been passed pursuant to order dated 17.09.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.6347 of 2012, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged clause 4 and 13 of allotment letter dated 22.08.1998. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits as follows: (a) That the petitioner is a handicapped person and is self-employed by being a manufacturer of steel almirah and table etc. (b) A notice inviting tender was issued by the respondents for allotment of shops on rent basis and pursuant to that tender, the petitioner duly participated and applied for allotment of shop nos.6, 7 and 8 by a single tender. (c) The petitioner became a successful bidder and thereafter, the petitioner was allotted shop nos.6, 7 and 8 on rent basis at the rate of Rs.5,550/- per month vide letter no.1794 dated 22.08.1998. (d) In clause no.4 of the allotment letter there is a specific provision that in case the rent is not paid within the specific time, a penalty of 15% per annum or the bank rate whichever is higher, will be chargeable on the default portion of the rent. In clause-13, there is a specific provision that the respondent-authority will be entitled to refix the rent from time to time and there is a specific provision that after every two years, there will be a minimum enhancement of 15% which will be payable by the petitioner. (e) Pursuant to the allotment letter, the petitioner was given possession of the shops. (f) As the petitioner is visually impaired, therefore at the time of issuance of allotment letter the petitioner could not notice clause-4 and clause-13 of the allotment letter, which provided for 15% penal interest for non-payment of rent and also for 15% enhancement of rent after every two years from the date of allotment. (f) As the petitioner is visually impaired, therefore at the time of issuance of allotment letter the petitioner could not notice clause-4 and clause-13 of the allotment letter, which provided for 15% penal interest for non-payment of rent and also for 15% enhancement of rent after every two years from the date of allotment. (g) As the petitioner could not notice the aforesaid two clauses, the petitioner kept on paying rent as it was originally fixed vide the allotment letter and accordingly, the petitioner defaulted in making payment of rent in terms of clause nos.4 and 13 of the allotment letter. He submits that as mentioned in paragraph no.12 of the writ petition, the rent was regularly paid till the year, 2007. (h) The shop nos.6 and 7 were not capable of being used by the petitioner as the petitioner was not able to open its shutter on account of some more construction in front of shop nos.6 and 7. (i) The petitioner filed a representation dated 10.07.2007, wherein the petitioner had raised his grievance and when the grievance of the petitioner was not decided by the respondents, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No.6347 of 2012 which was disposed of by the order dated 17.09.2013 with a direction upon the Managing Director of the respondent- Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. (j) Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority, which was disposed of vide impugned order dated 24.08.2015 as contained in Annexure-15 to the writ petition whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is guided by the terms and conditions of the allotment and so far as the grievance regarding shop nos.6 and 7 is concerned, it was said that the three shops i.e. shop nos.6, 7 and 8 were allotted to the petitioner by way of single tender. (k) The petitioner submits that he has annexed certain orders of allotment as contained in Annexure-16 Series issued as back as on 06.02.1980, 18.12.1979 and 17.05.1980 to show that there is no such similar clause so far as these allotment letters are concerned. The petitioner has also referred to Annexure-11 to show that the allottees, who are having shops in the vicinity of the petitioner, are paying lesser rent as compared to the writ petitioner. The petitioner has also referred to Annexure-11 to show that the allottees, who are having shops in the vicinity of the petitioner, are paying lesser rent as compared to the writ petitioner. (l) The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments reported in AIR 1989 SC 1642 ; (2007) 6 SCC 81 and (2006) 10 SCC 236 to submit that the arbitrariness in the State’s action can be examined by the Writ Court in Article 226 of the Constitution of India even in contractual matters. 4. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that the petitioner was allotted shop nos.6, 7 and 8 by way of single allotment pursuant to a tender issued for the purpose and the petitioner has accepted the terms and conditions of the tender as well as the terms and conditions of the allotment. After duly participating, the petitioner was allotted the shops and accordingly, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the clauses of the allotment letter. 5. The counsel for the respondents also submits that so far as the other allotment letters are concerned, there is a provision that the authority may revise the rent from time to time, although there is no specific clause that there will be an enhancement of 15% after every two years. In the instant case, the authority have thought it proper to specify the minimum rate of enhancement which has to be done by the authority. In such circumstances, the clause nos.4 and 13 are valid and there is no arbitrariness involved in this. Counsel for the respondents further submits that in the impugned order itself it has been mentioned that the steps have been taken for enhancement of rent. So far as other shops are concerned, there are certificate cases and execution cases pending against some of the allottees of various other shops. 6. The counsel for the respondents further submitted that so far as allotment letters of the year, 1979 and 1980 are concerned, those allotment letters were issued by the then Bihar State Small Industries Corporation Limited, Patna and the allottees of those allotment letters are governed by their own terms and conditions which has no concern with the terms and conditions of the allotment so far as the petitioner is concerned. 7. 7. The counsel for the respondents has relied upon judgment reported in AIR 1996 SC 3515 and judgment reported in (2000) 6 SCC 293 to submit that in the realm of contract the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 8. After hearing the parties and after considering the materials on record, this writ petition is dismissed on account of following facts and reasons: (a) The petitioner has participated in the process of tender for the allotment of shops i.e. shop nos.6, 7 and 8 as a single shop by way of single tender and was issued the allotment letter dated 22.08.1998 providing for the rent as well as consequences for default in payment of rent and there was a specific provision for enhancement of minimum rent at the rate of 15% after every two years. After having accepted the allotment and having taken the possession of the property, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the clauses of the allotment. From the records of the case, it appears that the petitioner has paid rent only till the year, 2007 as has been mentioned by the writ petitioner in paragraph no.12 of the writ petition itself. (b) So far as the impugned order is concerned, this Court finds that the impugned order is a detailed reasoned order. Every grievance of the petitioner has been taken care of and the impugned order clearly says that the petitioner is to be governed by its own terms and conditions and so far as other persons are concerned, steps have been taken for the enhancement of rent. This court is of the considered view that no parity can be claimed by the petitioner vis-à-vis the allotments which has been made at much earlier time. Moreover it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the petitioner being a visually impaired person, he could not see the terms and conditions of allotment of shops at the time of allotment. (c) This court finds that the penalty clause which has been mentioned in the impugned allotment letter at clause-4 is reasonable. This court is of the considered view that no person can take advantage of his own wrong by not paying the rent in time. Penalty for non-deposit of rent is very well-known. This Court does not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the clause regarding penalty. This court is of the considered view that no person can take advantage of his own wrong by not paying the rent in time. Penalty for non-deposit of rent is very well-known. This Court does not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the clause regarding penalty. (d) Regarding enhancement of rent it has been mentioned in clause-13 of the allotment letter that it will be for the authorities to review the rent from time to time and it is only a minimum of 15% enhancement after every two years which has been provided and this Court does not find any arbitrariness or illegality in such clause. (e) So far as the comparison of the petitioner vis-à-vis the other persons are concerned, every person is governed by its own terms and conditions and the letters of allotment to other persons which have been annexed with the writ petition show that there is a clause that the authority would take steps for enhancement of rent from time to time and such enhancement will be binding on those persons. In the impugned order this Court finds that the authority has taken specific stand that steps for enhancement of rent has already been taken so far as other allottees are concerned. Accordingly this Court does not find any arbitrariness, illegality or unfairness in the impugned order or impugned action of the respondents so as to call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons this writ petition is dismissed.