IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14781 of 2007 BRAJ NANDAN SINGH Versus THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD& ----------- 5. 13.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Housing Board. In pursuance of a public auction, the petitioner was allotted a plot of land identified as DS 24 C in Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh in the town of Patna measuring 3.81 Kathas .The price of the land allotted in June, 1984 was fixed at Rs. 3.50 lacs. The hire purchase agreement was then executed in October, 1984 and in pursuance thereof possession was given. A sum of Rs. 2,37,500/- was paid by the petitioner in the manner prescribed including all initial deposit required to be made. It appears that the controversy arose thereafter with regard to the alleged default in payment of certain instalments when the Housing Board invoking its powers cancelled the allotment by order dated 21.12.1993. The petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No. 1344 of 1994 which was disposed off on 5.7.1994 with analogous application setting aside the cancellation order on technical ground of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice with liberty to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. The matter appears to have remained pending thereafter when ultimately final orders were passed by the Housing Board on 30.10.2007 raising a demand from the petitioner as arrears now assessed at Rs. 33,42,623/- inclusive of interest. The petitioner came to this Court assailing the order when this Court by order dated 25.2.2008 required the Housing Board to explain the circumstances in which the matter remained pending for 13 long years before the Housing Board itself for which it - 2 - appears that the petitioner was being saddled with the liability. Today a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Annexure-12, dated 17.3.2008 is a fresh order by the Chairman- cum-Managing Director of the Respondent-Board. Perhaps this was propelled by the observations of this Court in the order dated 25.2.2008. The order of the Housing Board now states that in similar matters interest and dues had been calculated and orders passed as on 11.10.1999 with regard to other writ petitioners disposed off along with CWJC No. 1344 of 1994. It will, therefore, be consistent to likewise assess the liability of the petitioner as on 31.12.1999. That there have been certain breaches on the part of the petitioner of conditions 3,4 & 9 of the hire purchase agreement is a fact not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. His submission further is that the petitioner cannot be saddled with additional liabilities in what essentially is the fault of the Respondents in not disposing of the matter earlier after remand by the High Court. This Court in CWJC No. 1344 of 1994 did not fix any time limit for such fresh disposal. It stands equally settled that when no time is prescribed, the order is to be complied forthwith or at least within a reasonable time. The Court would conveniently refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 688 (M/s Hindustan Times Ltd. V. Union of India & ors.) at paragraph 20. The yardstick of reasonable time shall be measured by this Court in terms of the general orders passed by this Court in writ jurisdiction in such matters when the issues are remanded for re-hearing and re-determination for violation of the principles of natural justice within - 3 - a period of 2-3 months. This Court is satisfied that a reasonable time in the circumstances can easily be fixed in the nature of the issue for a period of three months i.e. till October, 1994. This Court, therefore holds that the Respondents were required to re-determine the liability of the petitioner on remand by the writ Court reasonably by the October, 1994. They have clearly not done so. Even the order dated 17.3.2008 does not contain any explanation whatsoever for this unreasonable delay on the part of the Housing Board. The fact that certain other persons may not have challenged the fixation of their dues as on 31.12.1999 shall not lend credibility to the action of the Housing Board especially when the petitioner has laid down a challenge to the same. The impugned order dated 31.10.2007 as modified by the order dated 17.3.2008 are, accordingly, set aside to the extent that the Housing Board is directed to assess the liability of the petitioner in the background of his assessment as done finally in October, 1994, which the petitioner shall be bound to comply within such time as the Board may grant to him for the purpose or such extended time that the Board may grant to him on a request made by him to that effect. In the event of the failure of the petitioner to do so, the Board shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)