1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4305 OF 2007 Civil Hudco Kalyankari Sangh Sevedi Road, Hudco, Ahmednagar .. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. D.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, AGP for the State. Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4. ===== CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K. K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 2nd AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Heard. 2 The petitioner was allotted tenament by Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority which was occupied by the petitioner in the year 1990. The petitioner approached this court earlier by filing 2 Writ Petition bearing no. 1449/1990. By order dt. 19-11-2005, said writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 therein i.e. Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority to determine price of each block in the four multi-storied buildings constructed at Sevedi allotted to the general public, according to the provisions of law, if not already fixed. 3 Petitioner now challenge notice issued in the year 2006 by the respondent. Learned counsel Shri Kulkarni objects to the amount charged against idem nos. 3, 7 and 8 of the notice Exh. E. Learned counsel submits that – a) charging of 18% interest is against law, b) the petitioner is not entitled to reimburse the interest which respondent no. 2 might have paid to HUDCO and c) as writ petition was pending in this court right from the year 1990 till 2005, the amount towards delayed payment is also unreasonably charged by the competent authority. Learned counsel further submits that the indemnity bond which has been executed does not authorise the Maharashtra Housing Area Development authority to excessively charge the 3 petitioner interest for delayed payment. Charging of interest on this court, according to the learned counsel, is against the rules and regulations framed by the Maharashtra Housing Area Development authority. 4 The respondent / Maharashtra Housing Area Development authority filed affidavit in reply through the Deputy Engineer on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4. Learned counsel shri Shinde submits that in the year 1990 itself, taking notice of the writ petition filed earlier by the petitioner bearing no. 1449/1990, the price of each of the tenaments was determined and accordingly it was intimated to the petitioner and the allottees with a request that they may now withdraw the writ petition. The writ petitoin was not withdrawn inspite of said communication. Learned counsel submits that, under the provisions of law, Maharashtra Housing Area Development authority is entitled to impose the levy of interest, delayed payment and other charges, which, according to the learned counsel, are in accordance with law. Learned counsel shri Shinde further submits that the issues which the 4 petitioner is disputing cannot be determined in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court and, an effective, alternate remedy is available to the petitioner under the act itself which the petitioner can avail of, if so desire. 5 In the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner on this count need not be entertained by this court again for the second time. Firstly, the petitioner’s writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondent to determine the price of the tenament. According to the Maharashtra Housing Area Development authority, the price was already determined and it was communicated to the petitioner. Now the petitioner is aggrieved by the notice of recovery of amount which, according to the Maharashtra Housing Area development authority is due. 6 In the facts of the case, we find that law has provided effective alternate remedy to the petitioner in this regard. The petitioner, if desire, can avail of such alternate remedies which are in the form of 5 appeals. 7 In the light of facts of the case and an alternate remedy available to the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere in the petition in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction at this stage. The petitioner may resort to alternate remedy. In case, the petitioner files appeal within a period of two weeks from today, the appeal shall not be dismissed on the ground of delay. We direct respondent nos. 2 to 4 not take adverse action or coercive steps to recover the amount under notice for a period of eight weeks from today. The petition stands disposed of. The amount deposited by the petitioner in this court is permitted to be withdrawn by the Maharashtra Housing Area Development authority which shall be adjusted against the petitioner’s claim alongwith accrued interest, if any. The registry shall take steps accordingly. ( K. K. TATED, J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J. ) dyb/office/wp4305.07.odt