ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why and under what circumstances the scheme for allotment of the houses/flats has been changed. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to maintain the priority of the petitioners in allotment of MIG houses and to direct the respondents to allot a suitable MIG house to each petitioner as per their respective entitlement. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the notice (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby the respondent no. 2 – Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu, Ranchi has decided to allot the houses/flats/plots on lottery basis. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the retired Government servants who at the time of filing of the writ petition, were living in a rented premises. The respondent no. 3 – Bihar State Housing Board came out with a social housing scheme for providing land, houses and flats at subsidised rate to the needy persons and in this process it floated prospectus and brochure inviting applications. In response to the advertisement, as the petitioners were in need of houses, the petitioner no. 1 made an application in the prescribed format for allotment of the house/flat in MIG category and got himself registered after depositing Rs. 50/- with the respondent no. 3 vide money receipt no. 300948 dated 12.11.1981. The petitioner no. 1 also submitted application being form no. 132645 along with income certificate with affidavit and bank draft of Rs. 6500/- through receipt no. 340334 dated 16.04.1982 as earnest money. Similarly, the petitioner no. 2 also applied in the prescribed format for allotment of a house under MIG category and got himself registered after depositing the sum of Rs. 50/- vide money receipt no. 300947 dated 12.11.1981. He also submitted his application form no. 103355 along with income certificate and bank draft of Rs. 6,500/- through receipt no. 303021 dated 23.12.1981 towards earnest money. The petitioners fulfilled all the terms and conditions as mentioned in the prospectus for allotment of the houses/flats under MIG category. The petitioners, however, were not called upon subsequently in relation to the allotment of the houses/flats for which they had applied. 6,500/- through receipt no. 303021 dated 23.12.1981 towards earnest money. The petitioners fulfilled all the terms and conditions as mentioned in the prospectus for allotment of the houses/flats under MIG category. The petitioners, however, were not called upon subsequently in relation to the allotment of the houses/flats for which they had applied. Even after creation of the Jharkhand State Housing Board, the claim of the petitioners was not considered, rather it was decided to go for a system of lottery on the ground that after 08.10.1983, the scheme of priority was replaced by a new system of lottery. Surprisingly, the petitioners were informed that there was a publication of notice issued in the year 2005 by the respondent no. 2 informing all the previous applicants to take back the amount deposited by them for allotment of houses/flats within 30 days of the notice, failing which no further claim for refund would be entertained. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondents have acted arbitrarily by replacing the scheme “first come first get” by a system of “lottery” in contravention of the provisions of the allotment scheme earlier existed. Despite having received the earnest money, the respondents have not allotted the MIG houses/flats to the petitioners for several years. The said action of the respondents is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 – Jharkhand State Housing Board stating inter alia that the petitioners have not annexed any relevant provision to suggest that they should get the allotment of MIG houses/flats on the basis of their seniority i.e., “first come first get” basis. Even assuming that there existed any law in the year 1981, the same came to be substituted and replaced by the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 published in Bihar Gazette (Extra-ordinary) on 08.10.1983 and allotment schemes earlier framed got automatically superseded by the new law. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners did not take any step in this regard between 1982 to 2012 and they filed the present writ petition in the year 2012 i.e., after about 30 years from the date of making application. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. The petitioners applied before the respondent no. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. The petitioners applied before the respondent no. 3 for allotment of MIG houses/flats in the year 1981-82. They also deposited earnest money of Rs. 6,500/- each along with their applications before the respondent no. 3 for the said allotment. The grievance of the petitioners is that they should have been allotted the MIG houses/flats as applied, on the basis of “first come first get” basis. On the contrary, the stand of the respondent no. 2 is that since in the meantime, the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 came into force, all the earlier schemes got superseded. 6. To appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be relevant to go through the applicable laws in this regard. The State of Bihar promulgated the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 [Bihar Act 57 of 1982] by which the Bihar State Housing Board was given statutory recognition by virtue of Section 3 of the said Act. Section 115 of the said Act empowered the Housing Board to make regulations by way of notification for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, the Bihar State Housing Board came out with Bihar State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulation, 1983 [Housing Board Regulation No. 1 of 1983]. Clause 26 of the said Regulation reads as under: “26. Subject to the approval of Government, the Board/Divisional Allotment Committee shall determine which of the applicants are eligible for allotment and the decision thus arrived at (of the Committee in this regard) shall be final:- (i) In every category (except discretionary quota) the allotment of property to eligible applicants shall be made by draw of lots by the Board. The procedure of draw of lots will be decided by the Managing Director. (ii) The particular Plot/House/Flat to be allotted to the applicant in accordance with subsection (i) above shall be determined by drawing of lots after due notice to such applicants of the date, time and venue of the draw.” 7. On perusal of Clause 26(i) of the Regulation, it would appear that the allotment of the property to the eligible applicants is required to be made by way of “draw of lots” by the Board. 8. The petitioners appear to have applied before the respondent no. On perusal of Clause 26(i) of the Regulation, it would appear that the allotment of the property to the eligible applicants is required to be made by way of “draw of lots” by the Board. 8. The petitioners appear to have applied before the respondent no. 3 on the basis of the prospectus which was initially issued in the month of September 1974. Clause 2.6 of the said prospectus provides that the priority would be given in order of the date of demand registration or applications made in the past to the Housing Department with deposits. Admittedly, the petitioners had not applied for allotment of MIG houses/flats before the Housing Department of the then Government of Bihar, rather they made applications before the Bihar State Housing Board (as it existed then). Thus, it cannot be said that the applications made by the petitioners would be saved in terms of the provisions of Clause 2.6 of the prospectus which was initially issued in the month of September, 1974. So far as the applicability of the earlier scheme in terms of which the petitioners made their applications is concerned, it automatically got superseded by reasons of enactment of Act, 1982 and was to be guided by Clause 26 of the Regulation 1983 which speaks of allotment of property to the applicants on the basis of “draw of lots”. 9. Moreover, by virtue of Section 119 (1) of the Act, 1982, the Bihar State Housing Board Ordinance 1982 [Bihar Ordinance No. 31 of 1982] was repealed. Section 119 (2) of the Act, 1982 provides that notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken in exercise of any power conferred by or under the said Ordinance shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of powers conferred by or under this Act as if this Act were in force on the day on which such thing or action was done or taken. However, it is not the case of the petitioners that they made applications for allotment of MIG houses/flats in pursuance of any scheme formulated under the Bihar Ordinance No. 31 of 1982, rather it would be evident from Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners dated 07.01.2013 that they had in fact applied on the basis of terms and conditions contained in the prospectus initially issued in the month of September, 1974 which continued subsequently. 10. Thus, in my considered view, the contention of the petitioners that their applications should have been considered by the respondent no. 3 and subsequently by the respondent no. 2 (after its creation) on the basis of “first come first get” is liable to be rejected. Clause 26 of the Regulation 1983 framed under Section 115 of the Act, 1982 in fact superseded all the earlier schemes except those floated under the Bihar Ordinance No. 31 of 1982. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 12. It is, however, observed that since the petitioners continued with the litigation seeking allotment of MIG houses/flats, the respondent no. 2 – Jharkhand State Housing Board is directed to refund the earnest money of Rs. 6,500/- deposited by the petitioners though without interest within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, irrespective of the fact that they did not respond to the publication of notice in the year 2005 for taking back the deposited amount.