senior to the two petitioners and had applied for category „A‟ flats. 20. Be that as it may, we are not examining the case of Alok Suri and Amit Bajaj in the present writ petitions as they are not parties before us. What is clear and apparent is that if the six category „A‟ flats are allotted to respondents Nos.4 to 8 and 10, then the petitioners cannot possibly be allotted to category „A‟ flats and, therefore, they would have to opt for category „B‟ flats. It is in this context, it is pertinent to equate the two petitioners and treat them at par along with others who were included in the draw of lots. 21. Counsel for the respondents Nos.4 to 8 had submitted that they had applied for upgradation of flats from category „B‟ to category „A‟ in November, 2000, which is earlier in point of time and before the two petitioners herein were enrolled as members on 28th April, 2002. Though factually correct, this precept was not the criteria or basis adopted by the society for making allotment of the six category „A‟ flats. Allotment was not on the basis of seniority but on draw of lots. The awards i.e. award dated 18th August, 2003 and 12th February, 2002 in categorical terms had directed the society to follow a transparent and fair criteria for allotment of flats in category „A‟ provided there was a vacancy. Thus, all members enrolled in category 'B' were to be equally treated without any preference or favour. 22. It is not the case of the society that the petitioners were excluded from the draw of lots for the reason that they were enrolled as members and had opted for category „A‟ flats, post the request of upgradation of flats made by respondents no.4 to 8 and 10. Indeed, the said position is not argued by the society and it is not their case as well. Possibly, they are constrained and cannot raise the argument, for juniors and those enrolled for category 'B' flats post the enrolment of the two petitioners were included in the draw of lots.
