IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13196 of 2005 Hem Kumari daughter of Late Ram Chandra Choudhary, resident of Mohalla-Quarter No. 3 LF/365, Housing Colony, Bahadurpur, Patna. ……..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Revenue Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. 3. Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Division-2, Bahadurpur, Patna. 4. Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. ……..Respondents ----------- 2. 15.11.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board are present. The writ petition originally came to be filed for quashing the order dated 27.08.2003 by which a demand has been raised by the Bihar State Housing Board calling upon the petitioner to pay a certain amount for final registration of the property in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the original agreement between the petitioner and the Housing Board for the property, she has fulfilled all the conditions mentioned therein and inspite of that the respondent Housing Board has come up with fresh demand, which is not explained. He submits that the same is beyond jurisdiction and illegal and should be set aside. Leaned counsel for the Board submits that as per the original agreement, the cost was tentative and could have been enhanced. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the power of the Board to enhance was limited to the circumstances as mentioned in such agreement itself and not beyond that. The Bihar State Housing Board has not answered the 2 points raised by the petitioner and has not dealt with the aspect as to under what provision of law or clause of the agreement such enhancement and fresh demand has been raised. From perusal of the counter affidavit also no such explanation or justification for the enhancement can be made out. This Court finds that the learned counsel for the Housing Board has to explain the extra demand in detail and also satisfy as to under what provision of the agreement or otherwise in law they are entitled to raise such a demand which would oblige the petitioner to pay the sum. In view of the controversy involved, this Court finds it expedient to dispose off the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to move before the Pricing Committee constituted by the Board under the order of a Division Bench of this Court, which is more equipped to go into issues of facts while deciding the justification of any price fixation. If such a representation is filed before the Pricing Committee by the petitioner within two months from today, alongwith a copy of this order, the said Committee will look into the matter and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner decide the same within the next three months thereafter. The writ petition stands disposed off. Saif/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)