RAMA NAND JHA SON OF LATE UPENDRA JHA Vs. BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Board.

(2.) The prayer made in this writ application reads as follows: This writ application is directed against the order No. 418 dated 7.2.2002 issued under the signature of Revenue Officer of the respondent Housing Board whereby and where under while communicating the details of the deposit and amount required to be paid towards the cost of petitioner 'sflat has been communicated, communicating the petitioner that due to re -determination of cost of flat in question is Rs. 1,00,700/ - as on 31.3.1996. This application is also being filed for commanding the respondents to execute the deed of lease perpetuated in favour of the petitioner and return the excess amount deposited by the petitioner. This writ application is being filed for other relief as well. The petitioner was initially allotted the flat being L.I.G. Flat No. 13/436 situated in Mohalla Hanuman Nagar initially on rental basis subsequently the flat in question was allotted on hire purchase basis vide allotment order dated 16.3.1990 whereby the tentative price of the flat in question was Rs. 47,400 as on 31.3.1990 out of which the petitioner was directed to deposit 20% as earnest money amounting to Rs. 7,480/ - and thus a sum of Rs. 37,920/ - shown as outstanding however the flat in question was allotted in pursuant to an order passed in T.S. 28/84 whereby a further direction was given to adjust the rent already deposited however the said amount was not adjusted while showing the deposit against the price in question creating a burden on the petitioner. The petitioner immediately objected and claimed adjustment of the rent amount on the date of the allotment order but due to callous attitude on the part of the respondent Board. Final settlement of the flat in question could not be materialized though the petitioner was ready to clear the outstanding in terms of the judgment and decree passed in T.S. 28/84. Due to oblique motive and extraneous consideration Board did not allow the dispute to be settled creating charge on the petitioner in the shape of accumulation of the outstanding. The petitioner was compelled to move this Hon ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7392/97 for quashing the exorbitant demand and other reliefs which was finally disposed of vide order dated 28.1.1998 commanding the competent of committee of the Board to dispose of the petitioner 'sgrievance in accordance with the records available. The Committee resolve to give effect to the decree passed in T.S. No. 28/84 but delayed the matter inordinately without any fault on the part of the petitioner rather such pendency has created accumulation of the outstanding, a charge on the petitioner. After the decision of the competent committee a fresh demand of Rs. 37761 as on 30.9.2001 vide letter dated 29.8.2001. Against the letter dated 29.8.2001 the petitioner again moved this Hon ble Court in C.W. J.C. No. 13116/2001 which was disposed of by this Hon ble Court by order dated 9.11.2001 commanding the respondent Board to complete the details of the deposit and clearly informed the petitioner about the required amount to be paid. In pursuant to the order dated 9.11.2001 the Board communicated the impugned order dated 7.2.2002 (Annexure 1) wherein the cost of flat in question has been shown to be enhanced a sum of Rs. 100700/ -as on 31.3.1996 under the garb of expenditure made over the scheme and the financial charges. Complete divergent to the costing made in the year 1990, neither there is any cogent reason to increase the cost specifically in respect of the flat in question or any development either in respect of the flat in question or area in question. Costing is based on calculation of price of land cost incurred in construction and development in area which have been considered while costing the flat in question in the year 1990. No intervening circumstances are there to increase the cost that too, unilaterally. The Board being an instrumentality of the State has to maintain fairness and considered the welfare of the people at large.

(3.) THE dispute in this writ petition as to whether the petitioner is being subjected to higher price of flat which was allotted to him in the year 1990 as per his own written agreement dated 31st March, 1990. in the first instance has to be gone into and adjudicated through the mode of arbitration in terms of Clause 25 of the Agreement which reads as follows: That on matters not specifically stipulated in the agreement or provided for in the relevant rules and regulations of the Board or in case any dispute, doubt or question arises between the settlee and the Board, then and in such event every such case shall be referred for arbitration to the Managing Director of the Board acting as such at the time and his decision in this regard shall be final and binding on both parties and shall not be liable to be questioned in any Court of Law.