IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2992 of 2011 ===================================================== Anand Prakash Anand, S/o. late Gurumukh Das Anand, R/o. Mohalla- at present Pramila Vastralaya, Mithapur, Patna, P.S. Jakkanpur, Distt. Patna. Permanent address 14/86, Savorn Path, Mansarovar Jaipur, Rajasthan. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Sri Anupam Kumar Suman, Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Mangles Road, Patna. 2. Sri Sunil Pandey, Land Property Officer, Bihar, Patna, Housing Board, Mangles Road, Patna-1. 3. Sri Lalan jee, The Revenue Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. 4. Smt. Lal Jha, The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna Division-1, Bihar, Patna. 5. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. Sri Rajendra Prasad S/o. late Lakshman Prasad, Vill-Bijokhari, P.S. Telhara, Distt- Nalanda. .... .... Respondent/s ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate, For the Respondent/s : Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amrendra Narayan Rai ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) 03. 24.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. From the show-cause filed on behalf of Bihar State Housing Board it stands admitted that amount of Rs.31,398.98/- which is the differential amount between the revised tentative cost and the amount which remains to be paid to the Housing Board till Patna High Court MJC No.2992 of 2011 (3) dt.24-08-2011 2 March, 2011 for transfer of flat has been deposited within the time indicated by the Division Bench in Annexure-1. Hence, the Board is ready and willing to transfer the flat in question to the petitioner without demanding any further amount. The dispute between the parties is how the further direction of the Division Bench for transferring the flat in the name of the proposed buyer is to be implemented. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the aforesaid differential amount also included profit amount which is required to be paid to the Housing Board by an original allottee, if he intends to transfer it to another person. On the other hand the Board again furnished chart of calculation to show that the profit money as per regulation comes to Rs.2,74, 494/-. The Chart annexed as Annexure-C dated 18.08.2011 supports the aforesaid contention. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in paragraph-8 of the show-cause the profit amount has been disclosed as Rs.2,79,494/-. Learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board has explained discrepancy by pointing out that the earlier calculation Patna High Court MJC No.2992 of 2011 (3) dt.24-08-2011 3 showed the market value as mentioned in paragraph-8 but the last calculation is on the basis of the latest figures and factors to be taken into account as indicated in Annexure-C. In the present contempt application we do not propose to go into the aforesaid dispute as to what will be the latest and correct profit amount for transfer of the flat to the proposed buyer as per the Regulation of the Board. Since the Division Bench indicated that the transfer shall be made to the proposed buyer as per terms and conditions of the regulations of the Housing Board, we can only direct the Housing Board to transfer the flat in question to the proposed buyer if the demand of profit amount indicated in Annexure-C is met by the petitioner within four weeks. However, if the petitioner so wants, since he has already paid the differential amount, the Board shall transfer the flat in the name of the petitioner forthwith. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the amount of the profit determined by Annexure-C, it goes without saying that he would be at liberty to point out errors, if any, through a representation for correction in calculation. If Patna High Court MJC No.2992 of 2011 (3) dt.24-08-2011 4 filed, the representation should be disposed of expeditiously. If the petitioner will not be satisfied he may pursue his remedy through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. The contempt application is disposed of. Mkr. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J. ) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)