IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2919 of 2005 (i). Kalawati Singh wife of late Mukteshwar Singh, (ii). Mukti Narayan, (iii). Dr. Vidyanand Kumar, (iv). Jyoti Narayan, (v). Vidya Narayan, (vi). Pushpanjali d/o late mukteshwar Singh, All are residents of M.I.G. 167, Hanuman Nagar, Kankerbagh, Patna-20, (vii). Piyush Kanti wife of Rajani Kant Yadav d/o late Dr. Muktesshwar Singh, r/o village Suhiya, P.S. Shahpur, District bhojpur(Ara) … … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. The Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director, Bihar, Patna, 3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna, 4. The Member of lthe Price Committee, Housing Board, through its Chairman Sri Abhi Krishna Sharma, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna, 5. Sri Abhi Krishna Sharma, the revenue Officer-cum- Chairman of Price Committee, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna, 6. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna Parmandal I, Lohia Nagar, Patna-20, 7. Bhu Parbandhak, Bhu Sampada Sah Joint Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna, … Respondents For the Petitioners: M/s Santosh Kumar Sinha and Vidyanand Kumar, Advocates For the State: Mr. Satyapal Narrotam, AC to GA-8 For Resp.Nos. 2 to 7: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate … 4 26.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and respondent nos. 2 to 7. Petitioners seek quashing of the order as 2 contained in memo no. 4185 dated 01.12.2004 passed by the Pricing Committee, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna, as contained in Annexure 1. In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed in this writ application, the short facts which are necessary are being dealt with as under:- The original petitioner(since deceased) entered into a hire-purchase agreement of a house, M.I.G. 167 at Hanuman Nagar, Patna. The tentative cost was about Rs. 66,382/-. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners, however, had already paid Rs. 1,06,216/-, i.e., about Rs. 34,000/- more than the tentative cost. However, on 17.06.1997 a further demand had been made for Rs. 1,55,164/- by a letter as contained in memo no. 3047 dated 17.06.1997, a copy of which has been brought on the record as Annexure 12. The petitioner, thereafter, requested for supply of the details of the demand. Then vide Annexure 16, i.e., a letter dated 15.12.1998 the demand was revised to be of Rs. 1,48,762/-. The original petitioner, thereafter, challenged the aforesaid demand by filing a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 21 of 1999, which was 3 disposed of by an order passed by this Court on 07.01.1999 as contained in Annexure 17 with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the Price Committee constituted for resolving such disputes within a period of three weeks and the petitioner was also directed to cooperate. Thereafter upon hearing the petitioner and other concerned parties, the order as contained in Annexure 1 dated 01.12.2004 has been passed, which is under challenge in the present writ application. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that on 24.06.2000 one incomplete chart was supplied to the original petitioner, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure 22. The original petitioner had filed objection in this regard. Thereafter, on 02.09.2002 after hearing the parties the Price Committee had reserved the order. However, the same could not be delivered for about two years and again on 16.04.2004 the case was notified for rehearing. On 31.08.2004 the matter was heard and the impugned order has been passed on 01.12.2004. The petitioner has placed reliance on several decisions, copies of which have been appended to this 4 writ application in support of his case that in view of the fact that the entire demand has been paid till the year 1995, the further demand of Rs. 1,48,762/- was not tenable, as there was no question of further escalation of price in view of the fact that the house in question was constructed and possession was handed over in the year 1981 itself. Whatever escalation of the price of the house was there, that was already paid by the petitioners. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 7 submitted that the price has escalated due to the reasons which were not in control of the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna such as development of the concerned area and the cost of the construction as well as the escalation of the price as per the Order/decree passed in reference cases. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on several decisions passed by this Court, whereby and whereunder, according to him, the escalation of the price has been upheld. However, from the impugned order as contained in Annexure 1, it appears that in view of the fact that the prices increased due to the decrees arising 5 out of the Land Acquisition Reference Cases were upheld by this Court, however, no justification has been given in the impugned order as to why even if the area was developed in the year 1981 and final demand was paid in the year 1995 itself, how a fresh demand could have been made. The Price Committee was obliged to analyse the cases of both the sides and, thereafter, it should have given the finding as to whether the price demanded was justified or not and if justified, then under which head such demand had accrued. There is no such finding at all in the impugned order. The only finding recorded by the Price Committee is to the effect that the members of the Price Committee agreed to the contention raised on behalf of the Board, and, thus, the demand was justified since the same was in public interest. In view of the fact that the impugned order does not disclose any reason based on scrutiny of the materials with regard to the fresh demand regarding the concerned house as no finding has been recorded in the impugned order justifying the headwise escalation of price specially when the house in question was handed 6 over to the original petitioner in 1981 itself, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. As a result, the impugned order dated 01.12.2004 as contained in Annexure 1 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Price Committee to consider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order after consideration of the grounds and issues raised by the parties and upon scrutiny/analysis of the materials on record within three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioners would be at liberty to file a fresh representation and would also cooperate in the proceeding. It is also made clear that if the petitioners do not cooperate in the proceeding by appearing on the date fixed or filing the necessary document or application as required by the Price Committee, it would be at liberty to decide the matter on its own merit and in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed to the extent as indicated above. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)