IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6390 of 2006 DR.KRISHNA MOHAN DUBEY, S/O- LATE RAJENDRA PRASAD DUBEY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- ALLAL PATTI, P.S.- LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, MANGLES ROAD, PATNA, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE REVENUE OFFICER, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, BHAGALPUR. 4. THE PRICING COMMITTEE, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN :----RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3. 13.04.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”). 2. In compliance of my order dated 04.04.2011 passed in the instant writ case counsel for the Board has called for the original file from the Board and with reference to the correspondence maintained in the said file states that in response to the request of the Executive Engineer of the Board contained in letter bearing Memo No. 491 dated 17.04.1997, Annexure-10 letter bearing no. 1032 dated 22.03.2003 was issued to the petitioner asking him to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 1,57,080/- or Rs. 1,58,568/- by 31.03.2003/ 30.04.2003. 3. Learned counsel for the Board further states that amount due from the petitioner has again been calculated by the Board and the amount which the petitioner is presently required to pay the Board in lieu of the MIG house bearing no. M-80 at Barari, 2 Bhagalpur is Rs. 1,40,314/-. Aforesaid submission of the counsel for the Board is required to be considered in the light of my directions contained in the earlier order dated 04.04.2011 passed in the instant case. It appears, petitioner was allotted M.I.G. House No. M-80 at Barari, Bhagalpur. He has filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 29.10.2005, Annexure-14 passed by the Pricing Committee of the Board in compliance of the orders of the High Court dated 09.04.2004, Annexure-12, whereunder Pricing Committee has directed the petitioner to pay the updated demand raised by the Board in connection with the allotment of the aforesaid house to the petitioner. From perusal of the letter bearing Memo No. 491 dated 17.04.1997 of the Executive Engineer of the Board, Annexure-10 it appears that tentative price of the aforesaid house was Rs. 78,650/- against which petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,33,509.50/- and taking note of the aforesaid deposit the Executive Engineer of the Board requested the Revenue Officer of the Board to furnish the updated demand with respect to the aforesaid house to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to clear the entire dues with respect to the house and to obtain the transfer deed. When the Revenue Officer of the Board did not comply the instruction of the Executive Engineer to furnish the updated demand to the petitioner, petitioner 3 submitted registered letter dated 16.2.1998 and when the said letter was also not attended to by the Revenue Officer, yet another reminder dated 8th May, 1998, Annexure-11 was issued requesting the Revenue Officer to furnish the updated demand so that petitioner may clear the entire dues. When no updated demand was furnished by the authorities of the board petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 903 of 2003 and during the pendency of the said writ case the Revenue Officer of the Board issued aforesaid letter bearing Memo No. 1032 dated 22.03.2003 asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,57080/1,58,568/- by 31.03.2003/30.04.2003. This Court having noticed the aforesaid submission and the contents of letter dated 22.03.2003 disposed of C.W.J.C.No. 903 of 2003 under orders dated 09.04.2004, Annexure-12 granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the demand raised under letter dated 22.03.2003 before the Pricing Committee of the Board. The Pricing Committee of the Board has upheld the demand raised under letter dated 22.3.2003 under orders dated 29.10.2005, Annexure-14 with further direction to the petitioner to pay the updated demand and the order dated 29.10.2005 has been communicated to the petitioner under Memo No. 4237 dated 02.11.2005 which has been impugned in this writ petition as Annexure-14. It is submitted on behalf 4 of the petitioner that having paid a sum of Rs. 1,33,509.05/- towards the price of the said house petitioner requested the Executive Engineer of the Board to provide him with the updated demand so as to enable him to clear the entire dues and obtain the transfer deed in response whereto the Executive Engineer wrote letter dated 17.04.1997, Annexure-10 asking the Revenue Officer of the Board to furnish the updated demand to the petitioner so as to enable him to clear the dues. In response to the request contained in letter dated 17.04.1997 when no updated demand was furnished to the petitioner he submitted reminder under registered letter dated 16.02.1998 and further reminder under letter dated 8th May, 1998 but the Revenue Officer of the Board for reasons best known to him did not furnish the petitioner with the updated demand and he had to file C.W.J.C.No. 903 of 2003. During the pendency of the aforesaid C.W.J.C.No. 903 of 2003 petitioner was served with Letter No. 1032 dated 22.3.2003 asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,57080/1,58,568/- by 31.03.2003/ 30.4.2003 towards the balance consideration amount of the aforesaid house. It is, thus, quite evident that during the period between 17.04.1997 till 22.3.2003 no demand for payment of the arrears of the consideration money was ever served on the petitioner although petitioner was asking the Executive Engineer 5 and the Revenue Officer to provide him with the updated demand as is evident from letter dated 17.04.1997, letter dated 16.02.1998 and 8th May, 1998, Annexure-11. It is, thus, quite clear that petitioner was willing to clear the dues of the house-in- question between the aforesaid period i.e. 17.4.1997- 22.03.2003, as such, in my opinion he should not be saddled with any interest over the amount due for the said period. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the authorities of the Board to recalculate the updated demand without levying any interest for the period between 17.04.1997 till 22.3.2003. Recalculated demand be furnished to the petitioner within one month from today and the petitioner should clear the same within another two weeks from the date of receipt of the demand. It goes without saying that after payment of the recalculated demand in compliance of this order the transfer deed for the house-in-question be registered as early as possible in any case within two months from the date of receipt of the recalculated demand. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)