It is admitted case that the petitioner had applied for allotment of a flat in the above mentioned scheme. The normal procedure of allotment of a flat has been prescribed in 1979 Regulation. Regulation 34 in unequivocal terms says that a plot shall be allotted by a lottery drawn publicly. It has also been mentioned in the same Regulation that all the applicants shall be sent written information regarding the place date and time of the lottery and such information shall be made public by publishing the same in newspapers and promulgation through other similar sources. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that she did not participate in the draw made through lottery and that her name and the disputed flat were kept segregated. The main contention of the petitioner is that since the Housing Commissioner kept her name and the disputed accommodation out of the drawl of lottery it means that the disputed flat was allotted to her and the Housing Commissioner and the respondent No.1 are bound under law to approve its allotment in her favour. It is her further contention that the segregation process by itself means that the respondent No.1 as well as the Housing Commissioner have decided that keeping in view her request the said flat was allotted to her and giving an approval of the same is nothing more than a formality. This contention has been vehemently opposed by the official respondents. They have categorically stated that there were few more applications pending before the Housing Commissioner regarding the same flat and after due consideration the Housing Commissioner took the decision that this flat should be exchanged by flat No.L410 which was allotted through lottery to private respondents. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sh. Satish Chaturvedi has argued that since the flat in question was segregated for allotment in favour of the petitioner awaiting formal approval of the same the flat in question stood allotted in her favour. It has been further submitted that the decision taken by the Housing Commissioner on 20.12.2006 to segregate the flat from normal mode of allotment and the fact that the application of the petitioner was kept out of lottery draw simply means that the Parishad had actually allotted the same in favour of the petitioner. It has been further submitted by Mr. Chaturvedi that the allotment of the disputed flat in favour of the private respondents is bad as it was done under the orders of the respondent No.3 who did not have any authority to pass such an order. It has also been argued from the side of the petitioner that due to her difficulties and genuine need the petitioner had requested the Chief Minister of UP for allotment of the particular flat which was duly considered by him and in this background the Commissioner exercised his powers in favour of the petitioner. Submit