Fairness in public allotments requires hearing before forfeiture, and comparable cases may justify fresh reconsideration.

Forfeiture of earnest money and cancellation of a public allotment cannot be applied mechanically where the allottee's request for transfer or extension remains undecided and no hearing was afforded. The Court treated forfeiture as a serious civil consequence that must satisfy fairness and Article 14, and noted that comparable cases had received relief or reconsideration. It also recognised that later developments may justify review of an administrative order. On these facts, the impugned forfeiture and cancellation were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by the revisional authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether forfeiture of earnest money and cancellation of the allotment letter could be sustained without affording a hearing and without considering the appellant's request for transfer and extension; (ii) whether, in the facts of the case and in view of later developments and comparable administrative orders, the matter required reconsideration by the revisional authority.

Issue (i): whether forfeiture of earnest money and cancellation of the allotment letter could be sustained without affording a hearing and without considering the appellant's request for transfer and extension.

Analysis: The allotment was governed by the statutory scheme of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Authority Act, 1995, but the authority acted on the footing that the appellant had not complied with the letter of intent. The record showed that the appellant had sought permission to transfer or mortgage and had also sought extension of time, yet no show-cause notice was issued and the request for transfer was not decided. The Court also noted that forfeiture, being a serious civil consequence, must be tested on the touchstone of fairness and Article 14, and that such power is not to be exercised mechanically.

Conclusion: The forfeiture and cancellation could not be treated as conclusively justified on the existing record against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether, in the facts of the case and in view of later developments and comparable administrative orders, the matter required reconsideration by the revisional authority.

Analysis: The Court took note that in similar cases the revisional authority and the High Court had granted relief or directed reconsideration, that the power of forfeiture should ordinarily be used as a last resort, and that subsequent events may be taken into account in appropriate review or correction of an order. In the peculiar facts, the Court found it unnecessary to enter finally into the merits and considered that justice would be served by fresh consideration of the appellant's case in the light of the earlier orders and the comparative treatment shown in similar matters.

Conclusion: The matter was required to be reconsidered afresh by the revisional authority.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appellant's case was sent back for fresh decision on the relevant materials and comparable precedents.

Ratio Decidendi: Forfeiture of earnest money in a public allotment process is not to be applied mechanically where the allottee's request for extension or transfer remains undecided and comparable relief has been granted in similar cases; in such circumstances, fairness and proportionality may require fresh administrative reconsideration.

---