further argues that the petitioners have admittedly not paid 20% of the amount after the issuance of the allotment letter and thus, have failed to honour the conditions and thus, respondent no.2 was well within its right to cancel the allotment. It is further argued that it is clearly well settled that judicial review on contractual matters is very limited and is available only to the extent of there being arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafides, and in the absence of any such allegation, it is not open for this Court to judicially review the order of cancellation as has been passed by respondent no.2. He further argues that the issue whether actual physical possession was taken or not cannot be raised in petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He further draws my attention to various clauses specifically Clause G(10) of the scheme which states that in case of default, the allotment will be cancelled without any further notice. It is further argued that Clause H of the scheme provides that a maximum of 120 days extension will be provided to deposit the reservation money/allotment money subject to payment of interest @ 15% per annum on pro-rata basis. He further argues that the petitioners have defaulted in payment of the allotment money as indicated in the allotment letter. It is further stated that despite various explanation sought, the deposits were not made and he draws the reference to the market conditions as pleaded by the petitioners in his communications. He further states that the demarcation of the land and the construction of the approach road etc., are to be done by the authority when the allottee deposits the allotment money and thereafter process of demarcation is done and the physical possession is given to the allottee and development works are undertaken by the authority, and as the petitioners have failed to deposit the allotment money, there was no reason for carrying out the development work. He further argues that the petitioners have not come with clean hands and have failed to fulfil its part of the contractual obligation and are not entitled to equitable relief from this Court. He further argues that the petitioners having
