IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2896 of 2009 Dr. Madan Mohan Dubey, son of Late Krishna Kumar Dubey, resident of 67 MIGH Kankarbagh, PS Kankarbagh, Dist. Patna – Petitioner. Vs. 1) Bihar State Housing board through its Managing Director, 6 Sardar Patel Marg, Patna. 2) Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Sardar Patel Marg, Patna. 3) Estate Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Sardar Patel Marg, Patna. 4) Revenue Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Sardar Patel Marg, Patna – Respondents. 5 15.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Housing Board. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order by which the petitioner has been asked to pay an additional sum of Rs.79,062/- for allotment of MIG Flat No. 67 at Kankarbagh. The facts are that the petitioner had applied for allotment of the flat in question which was allotted to him vide letter no. 4480, dated 2.9.1968 at a monthly rental of Rs.107/- . In the year 1974 the Board of Directors of the Housing Board took a decision that those tenants who are residing in the Flat at Kankarbagh and those who are desirous to purchase the Flat on a hire purchase basis should apply for the same. The decision was communicated to the petitioner, who paid 20% advance and began to live in MIG Flat No. 67. The petitioner entered into an agreement in the year 1974 and started paying installments for the flat in question. In 1979 the petitioner paid the entire amount which was the tentative price assessed to be at Rs.38,600/-. After the petitioner made the 2 entire payment a letter was issued to him vide Annexure 11 by the Manager Estate, dated 15.4.1988, who asked the petitioner to provide certain documents so that agreement could be finally registered. Again the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.100/- vide Annexure 13. It has been specifically stated both in Annexures 12 and 13 that there are no dues to be paid by the petitioner. For one reason or the other the final transfer could not be effected. It also appears that after the petitioner was allotted the flat on hire purchase basis, he stopped paying rent to the Housing Board from the year 1979. Suddenly the petitioner was issued a letter asking him to pay a sum of rs.79,062/- which was on account of rent which the petitioner had not paid from 1979 and the interest thereto. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid letter issued on 24.9.1996 vide Annexure 13, moved the District Forum. Apparently his application was allowed by the District Forum. The Housing Board filed an appeal which was allowed in their favour. I may point out that a submission was made before the appellate authority, that the matter relates to pricing of a flat. Presuming this to be true, the State Consumer Forum reversed the order of the District Forum. This court may point out that the order of the State Consumer Forum holding that the dispute revolves around fixing the price of the flat is not a correct view because that was not the question in issue. After the order, dated 26.2.2003 the petitioner was again served with letter, dated 5.12.2008 contained in Annexure 20 reiterating the demand of 3 Rs.79,062/- and odd and asking the petitioner to make the payment immediately. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Housing Board in which it has been stated that in the meeting of the Board held in the year 1984 the matter of paying rent was reviewed by the Board and a decision was taken not to adjust the amount of rent against cost in view of the expenditure, repair and maintenance of the house during the period of occupancy of the house. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the Board that the petitioner was bound to pay the rent till such time the house was transferred finally in the name of the petitioner. Non-payment of rent during the period aforesaid would also incur payment of interest. The Board has, therefore, calculated the interest as well as rent from the period from 1974 to 1996. This court on consideration of the entire facts comes to the conclusion that by virtue of taking a decision in the year, 1984 the Board could have perhaps reviewed its earlier decision to adjust the rent. However, once the Board took such a decision, it was incumbent on the Board to notice all such person who would be affected by the decision so that the members could have known as to what was the policy of the Board and acted accordingly. I, therefore, find that it was not reasonable ands fair for the Board to take a unilateral decision, regarding adjustment of the rent and keep the said decision close to its heart and thereafter suddenly demand payment of rent and interest. The entire procedure followed by the Board is not in accordance with law and in direct 4 conflict with the principles of natural justice and fair play. In similar facts this court in the case of Krishna Deva Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 2003 (2) PLJR 46 has also held that the Board had acted unfairly and asked the Board to repay the interest amount only. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order contained in Annexure 13, dated 24.9.1996 demanding payment of sum of Rs.79,062/- is quashed. The subsequent order as contained in Annexure 8, dated 5.12.2008 so far as it relates to payment in pursuance of the earlier decision, dated 24.9.1996 is also quashed. Since the petitioner has already made payment of the entire amount, he would be entitled to refund of interest only charged by the Board for the period 1974 to 1996. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)