LAWS(PAT)-2008-12-194

MEENA SINGH W/O SRI BHUPENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT, PATNA Vs. PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THR.ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN, MORYA LOK, PATNA

Decided On December 22, 2008
Meena Singh W/O Sri Bhupendra Kumar, Advocate, High Court, Patna Appellant
V/S
Patna Regional Development Authority, Thr.Its Vice -Chairman, Morya Lok, Patna Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the parties. The appellant -writ petitioner responded an advertisement, which suggested that, 137 flats would be sold on 'first come first served ' basis to the persons responding to the advertisement in respect of a flat of his choice. Appellant - petitioner has challenged the said advertisement and in particular, the deasion conveyed thereby that, the allotment of the flat in question would depend upon the promptness of the responder. Appellant -petitioner wanted allotment of flat no. 201 in Block 3 on Road No. 10B. The acknowledgment of such response, however, has not been placed on records of this case. The appellant -petitioner, however, does not dispute that she was the third applicant in respect of the said flat. Because she was the third applicant in respect of the said flat, having regard to the decision conveyed in the advertisement, the appellant -petitioner was aware that she would not be allotted the said flat, unless the first two applicants back out.

(2.) It was the delay on the part of the appellant -petitioner in making the application, which resulted in loss of her prospect of being the allottee of the flat in question. If the appellant -petitioner had been the first applicant in respect of the flat in question, having regard to the nature of the averments made in the writ petition, the appellant -petitioner would not have approached this Court at all, for in no uncertain terms she had disclosed how beneficial it would be for her if she is allotted the said flat. A person, who has taken his chance on the terms and conditions disclosed to him by an advertisement, after having had failed to achieve his object under the advertisement, should not, nor can be permitted to turn around and challenge the advertisement.

(3.) ON that principle, we dismiss the appeal, which was preferred against the order dismissing the writ petition.