By the Court.—A peculiar prayer has been made through this writ petition on the averments of strange facts having eccentric variations and omissions in relation to the predicted pattern.

2. The petitioner, a Scientist in the Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow had deposited 40,000/- through Bank Draft in the office of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. He alleges that the said Bank Draft was received by opposite party No. 2, who was a daily wage employee of opposite party No. 1. The petitioner further alleges that he has deposited the same Bank Draft as against the allotment of House No. D-1395/8, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. In lieu thereof, the opposite party delivered possession of the said house to the petitioner on 1.3.1998 and, since then, the petitioner is living in the house peacefully. But some manipulations were made in the office of the opposite party No. 1 and the Bank Draft deposited by the petitioner as contained in Annexure 1 was deposited in the name of opposite party No. 2, who is an ad hoc employee of opposite party No. 1. That the price of the house, in question was Rs. 1,10,000/-. When the remaining amount was not accepted by the opposite party No. 1, the petitioner moved a representation dated 19.11.1999 as contained in Annexure 2 to the Commissioner, U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, who, in turn, referred the matter to Joint Housing Commissioner (Vigilance) as contained in Annexure 3, resulting in some enquiry. Upon enquiry, it was found that it is a matter of forgery as is evident from the copy of enquiry report as contained in Annexure 4. The petitioner, again moved an application to the Chairman of Opposite No. 1, as contained in Annexure 5. Ultimately, the petitioner was informed through letter contained in Annexure 7. Upon enquiry, it was found that it is a matter of personal give and take between the petitioner and Opposite party No. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court for quashing of Annexure 7. Affidavits and counter-affidavits have been exchanged.

3. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the records.

4. It is true that a Bank Draft of Rs. 40,000/- was deposited by the petitioner in the Office of opposite party No. 1, but the petitioner has failed to show as to how and in what connection the said Bank Draft was deposited by him. The opposite party No. 1 is an autonomous body run by the Government of U.P., which has its rules and regulations. Allotment of a house is regulated by various Regulations and Rules. Mere deposit of a Bank Draft does not, ipso facto become an allotment order, nor this Bank Draft shows as to why it was deposited and in what connection. The prevalent procedure is that the plots/houses when put to sale are being advertised properly, which is an “invitation to offer” to the general public for allotment of a particular plot/house. When the said offer of a particular person is accepted, it is followed by letter of acceptance and then consideration is passed. Mere passing of consideration, no presumption can be drawn in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, if the contents of the petition are considered to be true to the hilt, it becomes a civil dispute which relate to right to hold property which is obviously a civil right for which the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach the Civil Court in original jurisdiction under Section 9 C.P.C which says that the Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

5. We are unable to understand the reason behind filing of this writ petition, by which no relief, directly or indirectly regarding the right over house No. D- 1395/8 can be granted. A simple certiorari has been sought for quashing the order dated 23.9.2000 as contained in Annexure 1. The said letter shows nothing except that it has been found upon enquiry that there appears to be a matter of personal give and take and by that letter, the pet