IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1481 of 2008 JITENDRA KUMAR ROY, son of late Braj Nandan Roy, resident of Flat No.1/22, Madhuban Housing Complex, Opposite Malahi Pakari, P S – Kankarbagh, District-Patna. Versus 1. M.M. SINGH , Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. 2. Sri K P Sinha, Executive Engineer, Division No.3, Bihar State Housing Board, Bhutnath Ashram Road, Kankarbagh, Patna. ----------- 04. 18.8.2010 An order dated 25.2.2008 was passed in CWJC No.11179 of 2003. Writ was filed by the petitioner alleging discrimination and arbitrariness which was committed by the respondents with regard to the price of the flat, which was claimed from him vis-à-vis yet another allottee for identical kind of property or flat in question. The Court considering the matter on the pleadings, did hold that any demand from the petitioner over and above the price, which was taken from another allottee, would be unfair. Excess amount must be refunded to the petitioner on his filing of a representation. The writ application was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the Managing Director, who was to decide the matter and pass a speaking order. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the speaking order which has been passed by the Managing Director is gross contempt in face of the order passed by this Court earlier. By the said order he has rejected the claim of refund as the same is not permissible in view of the observation of the Court dated 25.2.2008. Prima facie when the matter was heard for the first time the court was of the opinion that it is a case of non-application of mind and 2 the order of rejection passed by the Managing Director was in a mechanical manner. Now it has emerged which is evident from the accounts, which has been produced and is not being disputed that there is no difference in the price of the flat between the one allotted to the petitioner and the one allotted to yet another allottee namely Parambir Bharti. Price for the flat has been fixed by the Housing Board at Rs.4,29,928 and the same price has been demanded from the petitioner. The difference which the petitioner is making grievance of is the difference of interest component which has accrued against the petitioner due to delayed payment to the Housing Board. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Parambir Bharti paid back the entire amount of the cost of the flat on 29.4.1994 whereas the petitioner paid the said amount on 1.6.1996. Obviously there will be difference in the amount paid by Parambir Bharti and the petitioner due to interest component. The difference is not in the price of the flat but difference is in the interest component. Prima facie the Court is convinced that it is not a case of deliberate and intentional violation of the court’s order amounting to contempt.. If the petitioner has materials to challenge the aspect of accounting, he has remedy before the court of law. The contempt application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)