JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Service of notice of this petition upon respondent No. 1 is dispensed with because no relief has been claimed against the respondent No. 1. Notice issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been duly served but neither any reply has been filed by them nor anyone has appeared on their be. half to argue the case. In view of this we shall decide the writ petition by assuming that the averments made in the writ petition are correct.
2. Father of the petitioner late Shri C. L. Khanna gave the highest bid for booth site No. 79 in the auction held by the respondents in Sector 11, Panchkula in the year 1988. Letter of allotment was issued in favour of late Shri C. L. Khanna which contained various conditions. It is said that late Shri C. L. Khanna deposited Rs. 32,700/- on 26/5/1988 and another sum of Rs. 49,050/- on 14.7.1988. It has further been giver, out that late Shri C. L. Khanna paid various instalments between 10.3.1989 to 11.2.1993. However, in the meantime, respondent No. 2 issued notice to Shri C. L. Khanna calling upon him to deposit the amount specified in those notices. Notices Under Section 17(2), 17(3) and 17(4) were also issued from time to time. When the site in dispute was transferred in favour of the present petitioner on the basis of Will executed by late Shri C. L. Khanna, notice was also given to the petitioner requiring him to deposit the sum of Rs. 2,31,385/- as outstanding dues. The petitioner was also informed that in case he fails to deposit the amount, action will be taken Under Section 17(4) for resumption of the site.
3. Petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in demanding the amount specified in Annexure P17 dated 15.7.1996 by stating that the respondents have ignored the fact that the petitioner had already deposited substantial amount by way of different instalments and that as per the policy decision taken by the Administrator, HUDA, interest on the principal was liable to be waived.
4. Shri Aakash Jain vehemently argued that in view of the admission of similar writ petitions by this Court, this petition should also be admitted and an appropriate stay order be passed in favour of the petitioner. We are not at all impressed with this submission. Admission of another writ petition cannot prevent us from deciding the writ petition after notice to the respondents. We, therefore, do not find any ground to withhold decision of the writ petition merely on the ground that some other petitions have been admitted because that would not be in the interest of the petitioner as well as respondents.
5. Perusal of the notices issued to late Shri C.L. Khanna and the petitioner shows that action was initiated by the respondents Under Section 17 of the Act. If late Shri C.L. Khanna thought that this action of the respondents was illegal or arbitrary, he could appeal against the same Under Section 17(5) of the Act. He could also invoke the jurisdiction of the Chief Administrator Under Section 17(7). It was also open, to late Shri C.L. Khanna to invoke the arbitration clause contained in para 20 of the letter Annexure P1 issued by the Estate Officer while allotting the site in dispute in favour of late Shri C.L. Khanna. The petitioner could also avail similar remedy if he felt aggrieved by notice Annexure P17. That having not been done, we find no reason or justification to entertain this petition. In our view, failure of the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available to him Under Section 17(5), 17(7) and para 20 of the letter of allotment is sufficient for this Court to refuse to entertain challenge to the notices issued by the respondent No. 2.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. This shall, however, not prevent the petitioner from availing the alternative remedies available to him.
7. A copy of this order is directed to be placed on the record of CWP No. 7628 of 1994 and other similar writ petitions.