S KOUSALYA Vs. DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTANT ANNA NAGAR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an allotee of HIG Twin Type House in No.M9 at Kolathur Housing Scheme. The petitioner, pursuant to the list of defaulters announced by the 2nd respondent in "Dinamalar" in December 2007, has paid the default amount. The petitioner, on an understanding that the excess amount has been collected, resorted to get information under the Right to Information Act. Pursuant to her request, the Public Information Officer attached to Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Anna Nagar Division gave reply dated 22.1.2009 stating that what was published in the Newspaper was only tentative cost. Subsequently, when the terms were prepared upto January 2009, it was found that the petitioner has to pay Rs.48,172/ - in excess of the amount already paid and therefore the petitioner was directed to pay the said amount on or before January 2009. Challenging the said communication dated 22.1.2009, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. He seeks to set aside the order and also seeks for refund of Rs.19,480/ - collected from the petitioner in excess of the norms prescribed under G.O.No.174, Housing and Urban Development dated 7.2.1991.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up on 23.4.2009, this Court directed the Standing Counsel to take notice. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was admitted on 9.6.2009. Pending the Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for a direction to register and release the sale deed on payment of the amount of Rs.48,172/ - in respect of the allotment made to her. This Court by an order dated 9.6.2009 directed the petitioner to pay the said amount and pursuant to paying the amount, the 2nd respondent, namely the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Anna Nagar Division was directed to execute the sale deed.

(3.) WITH reference to the working sheet of the cost and the application of the Government Order, it is stated in the counter affidavit dated 'nil' (March 2011) that based upon G.O.Ms.No.174 dated 7.2.1991 interest on initial deposit and monthly instalments were collected from the allottee and the question of any refund does not arise. It is also stated that the petitioner purchased the house only on hire purchase category and even in the allotment order issued to the petitioner on 19.3.1990, the cost indicated was Rs.94,570/ - and it was only a tentative cost and not a final cost. But, however, the hire purchase arrangement was made into a outright purchase on the special request made by the petitioner that she has to get loan from the financial institution. It is also stated that no penal interest was collected on the interest.