Letters Patent Appeal No.807 OF 2002
(Against the Judgment and Order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7340
of 2002 on 22nd July, 2002)
SMT. MEENA SINGH, W/o Sri Bhupendra Kumar, Advocate, High
Court, Patna, R/o Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Kadam Kuan, Dist. Patna.
---------------(Appellant)
Versus
1. PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
thr. Its Vice Chairman, Morya Lok, Patna
2. The Secretary-cum-Estate Officer, Patna Regional Development
Authority, Morya Lok, Patna.
----------------------------------(Respondents)
For the Appellant
: Mr. Ebrahim Kabir.
For the Respondent
: Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma.
------
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA
Barin Ghosh &
S.K. Sharma, JJ.
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 decision conveyed thereby that the allotment of
the flat in question would depend upon the promptness of the
2
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.
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
3
around and challenge the advertisement.
On that principle, we dismiss the appeal,
which was preferred against the order dismissing the writ
petition.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
(Barin Ghosh, J.)
(Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)
Patna High Court, Patna
22nd December, 2008,
S.B.P./N.A.F.R.