The draw of lots is not allotment by itself and does not confer a legal right to allotment.

SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) ALL the 26 petitioners in WP (C) No. 10077-102/ 2006 as well as Mr. Mool Chand Vijay, petitioner in WP (C) 11953/2006 are aggrieved from the action of the respondents in allotting kiosks/shops/space in the rohini Courts Complex being in violation to the terms and conditions stated in the notice inviting application dated 20th/21 st April, 2006. According to the petitioners, the same have been allotted to some persons in a most arbitrary manner. The respondents are stated to have violated, in substance and spirit, the contents of the notice by holding draw of lots in a close room instead of before all the 3,000 applicants. Thus, they pray that the allotments made vide order dated 24th May, 2006 be quashed and the respondents be directed to conduct a fresh draw of lots at the designated venue and in presence of all the applicants in accordance with law.

( 2 ) THE facts as they emerge from the record are that the respondents had issued a notice inviting applications for allotment of kiosks/shops/space on 20th/21st april, 2006 in the Courts complex at Rohini. On 25th April, 2006, a public notice was issued in supersession of the earlier notice dated 20th/21 st April, 2006 in terms whereof the cost of the application was specified at Rs. 1,000/- and it also stated that the terms and conditions of allotment could be obtained along with the application form from the caretaking branch of the said district Courts complex. The petitioners had applied for allotment in the Rohini Courts Complex in terms of the said advertisement. According to the petitioners, there were approximately 3,000 applicants. Some of the petitioners belonged to the categories of Ex-serviceman, physically handicapped and SC/st. On 24th May, 2006, the petitioners at about 2 p. m. , reached the Rohini Courts Complex for the purpose of draw of lots. Upon making inquiries from the Administrative Officer's office, the petitioners were informed that a list of successful allottees would be released and the applicants could check the said list later. Being bewildered by the information given by that office, the petitioners approached the chamber of the Judge Incharge, located on the fourth floor of the complex where the draw of lots was to take place at 3 p. m. Nearly 2500 applicants were present at the site to have the draw of lots conducted in their presence. There the petitioners were told by the police authorities that the draw of lots would take place downstairs on the ground floor and all the applicants in pursuance to such information shifted to ground floor but no such draw of lots was held in their presence. The petitioners kept on waiting at the premises till 7 p. m. , however, nothing happened and on the next day when they went to the premises on 25th May, 2006 in the morning, they were shocked to see the list of successful applicants displayed on the gate of the Courts complex.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED from this action of the respondents, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. It is stated that it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to conduct the draw of lots in an open place and in presence of all the 2500 applicants who were present at the premises. The entire procedure conducted being violative of fair play, caused suspicion in the action of the respondents. As regards the weightage alleged to be given to reserved categories, no normal guidelines have been stated and as such, the entire process is arbitrary and is contrary to the basic rule of law and deserves to be quashed.

( 4 ) COMMON affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was filed wherein it has been stated that there was no obligation upon the respondents to conduct the draw of lots in an open place and in presence of 3,000 applicants. The draw of lots has been conducted strictly in terms of the conditions of the notice inviting applications. It is stated that list of successful candidates was displayed on the notice board at 7. 30 p. m. on 24th