IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.790 of 2007 DHARMDAS MUNDARI, MOHALLA BAHADURPUR, 7 HF 3/12, POLICE STATION KANKARBAGH, PATNA. VERSUS 1. THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD THROUGH ITS MD BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 2. MD, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 3. MEMBER SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 5. THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 6. THE ESTATE OFFICER BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA ----------- 2 25.07.2011. The petitioner prays for quashing letter dated 4.12.2006 issued by the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board , Patna (in short the Board) by which he has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 6,62,736.75 for the allotted HIG flat no. 7 HF 3/12, Bahadurpur, Patna. The petitioner also prays for direction to the respondents to execute a Deed of conveyance following payment of Rs. 3,83,813/- as against final cost of Rs. 3,01,174/-. The petitioner was allotted the aforesaid flat vide letter no. 2060/AA dated 2.6.1992 and 4070/AA dated 5.11.1992 issued by the State officer of the Board. The cost of the flat was determined at Rs. 3,01,174/- on 30.9.1992. As required, the petitioner deposited Rs. 1,46,570/- and the balance of Rs. 1,54,657/- was deposited in 84 equal monthly instalments of 2 Rs. 2918.65, hire purchase agreement bearing 275/2 dated 15.1.1993 was executed by the Executive Engineer, of the Board. It was conveyed that on payment of last installment, the deed of conveyance would be executed. The possession of the house was given vide authorization dated 13.4.1992. The petitioner submits that in fact he made payment of Rs. 3,86,813/- as against Rs. 3,01,174 required. The petitioner was surprised to see letter dated 22.4.2006, whereby he was asked to deposit Rs.7,10,105/- by 30.5.2006. Learned counsel for the Board submits that on account of various factors including price escalation, the petitioner has been asked to pay a higher amount. He submits that agreement also provides for enhancement of cost of the flat and also provides for arbitration clause for redressal of dispute. He submits that recently the Board has also formed a Committee for going into such dispute. The petitioner submits that the Committee has not become functional. Both the parties agree that the matter may be referred to the arbitration of the Chairman/Managing Director of the Board. Learned Single judge in case of Umesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and others (C.W.J.C.No. 2865/2000 and other 3 analogous cases) observed that while deciding the dispute the authorities would take into account escalation in respect of following four items provided in the agreement itself:- (a) increase in the cost of construction, (b) increase in the development charges or (c) increase of the cost of land acquisition due to any decision/award of court of law or legislation or (d) increase due to in the final valuation or calculation, as per the decision of the board. The learned Single judge further observed that all these factors would be individually adjudicated by the M.D. of the Board. As such, I also refer the dispute to the arbitration of the Managing Director of the Board for deciding the justifiability of demand of enhanced price vis-à-vis the four factors listed above. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)