IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6059 of 2000 BISHWANATH PRASAD SINGH son of late Brahamdeo Narain SinghResident of Sadanandpur, P.S. Balia, District Begusarai ............Petitioner. Versus 1.THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD- through its Managing Director,8 – Mangles Road, Patna 2The Estate Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna ....Respondents. ----------- 12 13.12.2010 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner has approached this court by filing the present writ petition with a prayer for quashing the demand notice dated 28.03.1998 (Annexure-1), whereby the petitioner has been asked to pay Rs.1,63,214/- towards arrear amount of allotment as also the interest thereon for allotment of Flat No.3 SFA-5/3 situate at Bahadurpur in the town of Patna. The main grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Housing Board is not entitled to realise interest amount for allotment of that Flat. According to the petitioner respondent Board came with a scheme in the year 1988-89 for construction of certain residential flats in the town of Patna under self finance scheme. The petitioner claims to have applied for A category Flat and deposited Rs.15, 000/- on 03.03.1989 as earnest money. The tentative price of A category flat was fixed at Rs.2, 20,000/- and the allotment was to be made by lottery system. As per brochure of the respondent Board, payment schedule was also indicated, which has been detailed in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. It is claimed that in the lottery held on 17.3.1990 flat in question was allotted to the 2 petitioner and intimation to that effect was made to the petitioner by a letter dated 3.5.1991 (Annexure-3). The petitioner claims that in view of allotment of the flat in question, he deposited Rs. 66,000/ - on 16.4.1990 as a first installment. He again deposited Rs. 55,000/- on 17.12.1993 as the second installment and 3rd installment of Rs. 55,000/- was deposited on 8.4. 1994. Therefore, in all including the earnest money, the petitioner claims to have deposited Rs. 1,91,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent Board fixed the price of the flat in question to be Rs. 1, 92, 448/- and, therefore, it is submitted that there was no justification for issuance of impugned demand notice dated 28.3.1998 asking such a hefty amount from the petitioner as arrear amount and the interest thereon for allotment of the flat in question. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has placed reliance on the counter affidavit already filed on their behalf. In the submission of learned counsel for the respondents, petitioner has not maintained the schedule for payment of installments and in fact, payment was made belatedly and, therefore, the respondent Board has rightly charged the penal interest @ Rs. 14.25% per annum. Other factual statement has not been disputed, but it has been asserted that as per brochure the tentative price of the flat was fixed at Rs. 2,20,000/- and that was required to be paid by the allottee in installments as per schedule prescribed therein. The petitioner was communicated about the allotment of the flat in question in his favour by letter dated 17.3.1990 and as per schedule, he deposited the first installment of Rs. 66,000/- on 16.4.1990. Second installment was 3 required to be deposited within six months from the date of issuance of allotment order, but the petitioner has deposited the said amount after delay of about three years on 17.12.1993. Even third installment was not paid within time and it was paid on 8.4.1994. According to the respondents the price of the flat was fixed at Rs. 1,92,489/- as on 31.3.1990, which was lesser than the original tentative price shown in the brochure as Rs. 2,20,000/-. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that respondent Board had taken loan from some financial institution and was obliged to pay interest for the same. Therefore, if the petitioner did not deposit the installment as per schedule, he is also obliged to pay interest. He has also drawn the attention of this court to paragraph 10 of the letter of allotment dated 3.5.1991 (Annexure-3) which provides that the flat shall be allotted to the allottee on 66 years of lease on full payment of price along with interest thereon. Therefore, in his submission, as per the terms of the letter of allotment itself there was provision for interest for delayed payment of the price of flat in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit, wherein it is stated that petitioner had further deposited Rs.29,000/- on 2.8.2000 and in all he claims to have deposited Rs. 2,21,448.00. The matters of calculation regarding payment cannot be gone into by this Court. The assertion made by the petitioner is required to be verified by the respondents or their officials. Prima facie, it appears that petitioner has not deposited the installments in time and, 4 therefore, he was obliged to pay interest for delayed payment. Therefore, this court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned notice, as contained in Annexure-1. However, it is common case of the parties that pursuant to order and directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court on 20.10.1995 in C.W.J.C. No. 47 of 1994 along with C.W.J.C. No. 2724 of 1994, a Pricing Committee has been constituted by the respondent Board for examination of such dispute between the flat owners and the respondent Board. Learned counsel for the Board submits that aforesaid Pricing Committee is still functioning. In that view of the matter, petitioner is given liberty to file a detailed representation before the aforesaid Pricing Committee, constituted by the Respondent Board, within a period of one month from today along with certified copy of this order. Thereafter aforesaid Pricing Committee, after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned will pass a reasoned order, taking into consideration the claim and counter claim of the parties. It is expected that the Pricing Committee will dispose of the entire dispute between the parties within a period of three months from the date of filing of such application by the petitioner. It is made clear that this court has not gone into merit of the case of the parties as set forth in the present order and the entire matter is left open for being decided by the Pricing Committee. It is further made clear that if the petitioner does not file any representation within the time of one month prescribed by this Court, then it would be construed that the present application has stood rejected by this Court. 5 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present application stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. M.Rahman ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )