IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14726 of 2005 Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh S/o Shri Fakira Singh Mohalla- Veer Kumar Singh Colony Kashipur, P.S. Samastipur, District- Samastipur. ……… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary having his office in old Secretariate P.S..Sachwalaya District- Patna. 2. District Magistrate, Samastipur. 3. Deputy Development Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad Samastipur. 4. District- Engineer, Zila Parishad Samastipur. 5. Deputy Chairman Zila Parishad Smnastipur. ……….Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2 25.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the State when the case is called out, though a counter affidavit is on record on behalf of the respondents no.3, 4 and 5. The writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to pay interest @ 18% per anum on the amount of Rs.1, 22,000.00 deposited by the petitioner for allotment of constructed shops. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the advertisement taken out by the Zila Parishad, Samastipur the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,22,000/- for allotment of shop after construction to him but when the shop had not been built till the year 2004, the petitioner made a request to refund the money on 24.6.2004 before the Deputy Development Commissioner and finally the amount 2 was refunded to him on 28.03.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to be paid interest on the amount illegally kept unutilized by the respondents for four years and four months, which was deposited for the purposes of handing over the allotted shop after construction to the petitioner, as promised by the respondent- Zila Parishad but not handed over to him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation that he would be handed over the shop for which money was deposited by him would be provided to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred and relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vrs. M. K. Gupta, reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 787. The stand of the respondent, Zila Parishad is clear from para-3 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under:- “That the brief facts of the case is that the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs 1, 22,000/- to Awadhesh Kumar Verma an Accountant of Zila Parishad, Samastipur for the purpose of taking shops which is to be constructed. The 3 amount was embezzled and misappropriated by Awadhesh Kumar Verma. A F.I.R. was lodged against him bearing G.R.No. 190/2003 Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 61/03 dated 18.2.2003 under Sections 420, 467, 468 ,471 I.P.C. Due to said embezzlement of the entire amount the shops could not have been constructed.’’ The petitioner submitted an application to the District Development Commissioner-Cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Samastipur which was presented before the D.D.C. on 24.6.2004 regarding refund of the amount. The amount of Rs.1, 22,000/- was refunded to the petitioner on 29.4.2005. The petitioner gave pleader’s notice which was replied accordingly vide memo no. 129 dated 1.7.2005(Annexure-7 of the writ application). Upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner and going through the pleadings on the record, this Court is satisfied with the reasons shown by the Zila Parishad for not being able to allot the shop to the petitioner and it is specifically stated that the amount has been embezzled and misappropriated for which F.I.R. was lodged. It is further submitted that upon the petitioner asking for refund the same was returned to him on 29.4.2005. 4 From the above it does not appear to this Court that there are any deliberate laches on the part of the respondents in the matter of refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner. As far as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Lucknow Development Authority (Supra), this Court would only like to clarify that the said case was basically with regard to the respondents failing in the duty of delivering possession of the house of the allottees within the stipulated time. This is not such a case. Further, the respondents may have committed error but the reason assigned for such non completion of the shop allotted to the petitioner cannot be faulted. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Sudha (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)