IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1199 of 2002 SMT.SUNITI SAHAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 10. 30.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The dispute with regard to allotment of house has been hovering at least in the mind of the petitioner for the last 25 years if not more. This Court would find that the petitioner is neither prepared to comply the terms and conditions of the agreement nor is he prepared to even comply the order passed by the three men Committee which had passed an order on 2.2.1998 pursuant to a direction of this Court. In that view of the matter, this Court has no answer to the grievance of the petitioner which seems to be a self inflicted injury being caused to her. The moment it is accepted that on the earlier representation made by the petitioner this Court was persuaded to refer the matter to an expert Committee for fixation of price and the expert Committee had done so by the impugned order dated 2.2.1998, the scope of judicial review of such order gets absolutely confined, 2 limiting challenge of the petitioner only to non-consideration or a wrong consideration of the order of this Court. The Counsel for the petitioner despite being repeatedly asked by this Court as to which portion of the order dated 2.2.1998 is wrong or incorrect or suffers from any error of record has failed to answer the said query. This Court would also note that a detailed reasoned order was passed by this Court on 12.7.2002 which in fact will limit the scope of dispute being sought to be explained by the petitioner from time to time. The order of this Court dated 12.7.2002 reads as follows: “ An affidavit is filed today which as directed by order, dated 8.7.2002 is sworn by the Managing Director of the Board. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit it is stated that the Board shall deliver to the petitioner vacant and peaceful possession of the allotted flat within a reasonable period from the date she gets the hire purchase agreement registered after fulfilling and complying with all the necessary requirements and formalities. One should have thought that that would be the end of the matter because the petitioner had come to this Court making a grievance that the flat allotted to her was in the unauthorized occupation of one Jai Ram Rai who was working as 3 Divisional Accountant in the Board itself and hence, the allotment of the flat to her was simply illusory and an eye wash. Today there appears to be a shift in the petitioner’s stand and now it seems that the real dispute related to the enhancement in the price of the flat over a period of time. In the allotment letter which was issued to the petitioner in the year 1984 the tentative price of the flat was shown around Rs.82,000/-. Now the price with the accumulation of interest apart from other factors, is around Rs.3,20,000/-. The petitioner is not agreeable to pay this price and insists that the flat may be handed over to her on the price indicated in the allotment order issued in the year 1984. In these facts this matter cannot be disposed of summarily. Put up this case after one month in the regular list.” In view of the aforementioned stand taken, it becomes clear that the petitioner has not complied the terms and conditions of the agreement and in fact the next order of this Court dated 29.3.2007 would go to show that the petitioner himself had offered to this Court that he may be allowed to take refund of the deposit made by him provided he was given reasonable interest. The said order infact reads as follows : - “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall not be averse to accepting refund of the deposits 4 made by him provided he is given reasonable interest. This Court considers it proper in the given nature of the controversy to explore this possibility also in view of the stand of the petitioner.” That being so, the petitioner now does not seem to be any longer interested for allotment of the flat or even questioning the allotment of the house as has been done by the impugned order. Obviously, the main relief, which was sought in this writ application, has been given up by the petitioner who now has confined his case only for refund of her amount. If that be so, the petitioner may approach the authority of the Housing Board, who will refund the amount of the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the amount deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months of filing of an application by the petitioner. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/