^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JIIDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH W.P. NQ23A^QF2001 Petitioner s^s'^ VERSUS 'K.P. Sharma S/6 Ramlocfaaa Sharma Aged about 43 years R./oHouseNo. 115 Sector-5, Balco Naear Kort»(Chhatusgarh) Bilaspur Dswtopment Authoritv, thmiiph tts ^iwiixffcuuve i.uucer Vyapur Vihar, Bilaapur Chhanisgarh -Dcvclopmont Airthnrity <B9aupuj'(CliliuUiiiyuiu],, WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/217 OF THE CONSTrTUtlON OF INDIAFCMISSUANGEOFWRn' IN THE NATIIRE OF MANDAMIT8 PROHIBITION ANI» FOR OTHERSUiTABLE WMT ORWRITs, DIRECnONORDIRECnONS.ORDERORGSDESS. PARTICULASS OF PETmONER As meationed in caused title. r^ u^.^-'^' K^W" r^ ^" ':!!-M 'sa N111 IN THE HIGH CC BILASPU] W.P.F Petitioner \A.--iV'r:''. y^!^'cr''»°.! y!^-s^^°" ^- ^ 6- ". <,^>> ^'\<s-' ^4'^ ^';,%.<;A^ r.y \ Res@Midffl!te_ ^ v^ y^ VI tt»ats«r(@»<3»^i1 JoQ ^^ PETITIONER RESPONDENT HIGH COURT_OFCHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETmQN N0. 2395 of2001 K.P. Sharma Versus Municipal Corporation Bilaspur .fS J2J- ff- 2-611 Post for pronouncement ofjudgment & order on 2,4 day of November, 2011 Sd/- Satish K. Agmliatri Judge \ jo>- PETITIONER RESPONDENT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 2395 of 2001 K.P. Sharma Versus Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Writ Petition UnderArticle 226/227 OfThe Constitution Of India Present:- Shri Sourabh Sharma with Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocates for the petitioner. Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate for the respondent. (Delivered on .-^A'day of November, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to allot MIG-2 Delux House to the petitioner, alternatively refund the entire amount alongwith 18% interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment. 2. The brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.09.1998 (Annexure R-1), petitioner made an application for allotment of house in Nutan Chowk, Sarkanda, Bilaspur. The deposit of Rs. 83.750/- was accepted on 28.09.1999 by the respondent the then Bilaspur Development Authority. The petitioner was thereafter directed to deposit the amount in three installments. The petitioner, accordingly deposited the amount Rs. 83.750/- on 02.01.2000, Rs. 83,750/- on 21.03.2000, Rs.18,750/- on 17.07.2000 and Rs.65,000/- on 30.06.2000 (Annexure P-5). After the entire amount was deposited, the petitioner received a letter dated 27.02.2001 (Annexure P-6) calling upon the petitioner to remain present before the authorities on 15.03.2001 for selection of the house. On reaching there, the petitioner was informed that no house was available for the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 16.03.2001 (Annexure P-6A) to the Chairman ofthe, then, Bilaspur Development v ,M^ /("% Authority. Then one more representation was made on 26.04.2001 (Annexure P-7). 3. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that onesimilariy situated Smt. Ranu Trivedi, who was also denied allotment of the house, approached this Court in W.P. No.438/2001 being parties Sm(. Ranu Trivedi v. Bilaspur Development Authority & Another. This Court, by order dated 19.10.2001 (Annexure P-9) directed the Bilaspur Development Authority to proceed with the allotment expeditiously. Accordingly, thereafter the allotment was made to Smt. Ranu Trivedi. 4. Shri Sharma, further submits that the money was deposited before 2000 and the last installment was paid on 30.06.2000. Till date, the respondent, who had stepped in the shoes of Bilaspur Development Authority, has not taken any steps either to allot the house or return back the money with interest to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, submits that the petitioner had submitted his application late beyond the time fixed and, as such, for lack ofsufficient house plots, no allotment could be made to the petitioner. The allotment to Smt. Ranu Trivedi was done on account of the order passed by this Court. It is further contended that at present there is no house left to be allotted or under construction for allotment to the petitioner. The respondent is ready and willing to refund the money, which was lying with the Corporation. The Corporation had already sent a cheque of Rs. 3,65,000/- recently under covering letter dated 30.11.2010 (Annexure R-2 & R-3). Thus, nothing remains to be settled and the matter may be dismissed. 6. Having considered all the facts of the case, it is evident that the total Rs. 3,65,000/- was deposited long back on or before 30.06.2000. The respondent had not taken any steps to refund back the money, but kept the same with itself and the Corporation had used the money for fsf"% '•••t f y©3 ,H 8. other purposes. In thatpr&Gess, the Cbrporation must hav®earned further money out of the amount deposited by the petitioner, as eonteiided by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If the house is not available, the pefitioner seeksfor refund ofthe total amount with interest @ 18% per annum from the date it was deposited till it is paid baCk to the petitioner, as this was fhe cohdition in notification dated 01.09.1998. The similar cohdition should be made applicable, ifthe Corporation also fails to refund backthe money, orfails to allot a house, to the applicant i.e. the petitioner, in this case. Maving heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, this appears to be a case of highhandedness on the part of the respondent. The respondent, pursuant to the order dated 19.10.2001 passed in case of Smt.Ranu Trivedi had allotted the house, when initially she was told that no house was available for allotment toher. In this Gase, when the pefition is pending consideration since 2001, the respondent Corporation has taken contrary stand, thus, it is expedient and proper thatthe petitioner is entitled tothe full amount of deposit with interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount of deposit from the date of deposit, till the amount is paid to the petitioner. The respondent is accordingly direGted to do the needTul within a period offourweeks. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish I^. Agiuliotri Judge '^... sgh'ok: