- (1.) Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Editor's Note The above Special Leave Petition was filed against the Judgment of Punjab and Haryana Court delivered on 13.5.2016 in case title "Manjit Kaur v. Estate Officer, RSA No. 2350 of 2015 - In the said judgment Punjab and Haryana High Court had passed the following order:- 1. Resultantly, the present Regular Second Appeal stands allowed and the judgment and decree dated 2.1.2015 passed by District Judge, Chandigarh are set aside and that of the Court of first instance dated 9.10.2013 are upheld and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Head note of said judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court as reported in 2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 434 is repeated below for ready reference:- A. Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, Rule 9-A - Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, Sections 10(3) and 19 - Chief Administrator is competent to condone the delay or extend the period for depositing the balance bid instalment - Discretion vested in the competent Authority should not be exercised arbitrarily and different yardsticks in case of similarly situated persons based on similar facts ought not to be adopted - If the benefit of rule can be extended to one allottee on the same facts, the same cannot be denied to another - Chief Administration cannot discriminate between equals - Held that:- 1. When the Administrative Authorities have violated the provisions of the Act and Principles of natural justice, a litigant has locus-standi to maintain suit before civil Court and jurisdiction of Civil Court is not barred under Section 19 of Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. 2. It amounts to breach of principles of natural justice and fair play when in spite of the fact that file of plaintiff was not traceable in the office of defendants and the Estate Officer had condoned the delay in deposit of 25% amount in number of cases, then allotment of the plot could not have been cancelled even if plaintiff had paid only 75% of the amount which was accepted by the defendants and retained in its office upto 20.5.2009. 3. Where the allottee fails to make the payment of instalment within stipulated period, resumption of the property should be the last resort and the same should be used sparingly - Even if the plaintiff before the date of show cause notice, had deposited only 25% amount, should have been extension of time to make the balance payment of premium should have been given. .;