The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between an invitation to treat and an offer, and the requirement for an intention to be bound for a statement to be considered an offer.

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THESE writ petitions were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order as they raise common questions of fact and law.

( 2 ) THE facts briefly are that the bhubaneswar Development Authority (for short, "the B. D. A. ") issued an advertisement in the Oriya Daily "the Samaya" dated 7-1-2006 offering developed plot of 2400 sq. ft. in phadrasekharpur residential area at a cost of Rs. 2,40,000/- only at the rate of rs. 100/- per sq. ft. and in the said advertisement it was stated that as there were only 45 plots the allotment will be decided on first come first serve basis. In the said advertisement it was further mentioned that applicants may deposit the money in the oriental Bank of Commerce, BDA Branch, bhubaneswar and apply, in plain paper with original challan. The; case of the petitioners in theses writ petitions is that on 7-1-r2000 they applied in plain paper and deposited rs, 2,40,000/- in the Oriental Bank of Commerce bda Branch, Bhubaneswar in response to the said advertisement dated 7-l-2000. The B. D. A. however did not allot any plot to Chandrasekharpur Residential area to the petitioners and instead decided in its 76th meeting held on, 16-5-2000 to-cancel the total process initiated by the said advertisement and return the amount deposited by the applicants with interest at 4. 5% and called for fresh applications by re-advertising the plots at the rate of Rs. 100/- pef sq. ft. and to allot the plots amongst the applicants on lottery basis. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions with a prayer to quash the said decision taken by the B. D. A. in its 76th meeting held on 16-5-2000 and to direct the B. D. A. to allot the plots to them in Chandrasekharpur residential area as per their applications.

( 3 ) IN O. J. C. No. 5429 of 2000, the Court while issuing notice in the writ petition to the opp. parties passed an interim order in misc. Case No. 5667 of 2000 on 25-9-2000 to the effect that the impugned cancellation of allotment and any subsequent allotment will abide by the result of the writ petition and the opp. parties will not allow any new allottees to raise construction on the lands which were allotted to the writ petitioners. Similarly, while issuing notice to the opp. parties in the writ petition O. J. C. No. 6728 of 2000, the Court passed an interim order in Misc. Case No. 7263 of 2000 on 17-8-2000 that any decision taken in pursuance of the resolution adopted in the meeting of the B. D. A. on 16-5-2000 will be subject to the result of the writ petition.

( 4 ) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the B. D. A. stating therein that in response to the advertisement published in the newspaper on 7-1-2000, 58 applicants deposited the out-right purchase cost of Rs. 2,40,000/- each on 7-1-2000 and three applicants deposited Rs. 2,40,000/- each on 8-1-2000, 10-1-2000 and 11-1-2000 and the fact that a sum of RS. 2. 40. 000/- was deposited on the very day on which advertisement was published, raised many eye-brows and a number of news items were published expressing doubts as to how a huge sum of rs. 2,40,000/- could be deposited by 58 persons one after the other in the bank and that too on the very day on which the advertisement was published in the newspaper. It is also stated in the said counter affidavit that the Secretary of the Lokpal by a letter dated 15-1-2000 requested the Vice-Chairman of B. D. A. to furnish a copy of the original advertisement as well as other advefttisements issued earlier and the Lokpal discussed the matter with the Vice-Chairman. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that taking all these facts; the B. D. A. in its 76 th meeting held on 16-5-2000 decided to cancel the total process and to return the amounts deposited with interest at 4. 5% to all the persons who had deposited the amounts and to readvertise for allotment of plots by lottery.

( 5 ) AT the hearing, Mr. Bijan Ray, learned counsel for the petitio