SATYA MARANDI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) IN this writ application initially the petitioner had made a prayer to the following relief: - "I. To command the respondents to allot an LIG house at Patna which was allotted to the petitioner through lottery conducted on 29.7.1991 and subsequently changed on the request of the petitioner and fresh flat 17/1599 situate at Hanuman Nagar was allotted to the petitioner in ST category. II. To command and direct the respondents to give physical possession of the flat after allotment with immediate effect on the price prevailing on the date of lottery. III. To further command the respondents to execute higher purchase agreement and give physical possession as per specification given in broucher as well as in advertisement. IV. To pass any other order or orders to which the petitioner entitled for." Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, however, on day before Yesterday had while mentioning this case for upgrading had submitted that in changed circumstances when the petitioner has become a Cancer patient she is no longer capable or interested in getting the allotment of a LIG house for which this writ application was filed. Mr. Sharma, however, submits that in the changed circumstances he may be allowed to press this application only for refund of the amount which was deposited by the petitioner alongwith interest. Mr. Sharma in this context had tried to expand his submission by taking a plea that as a matter of fact the flat was not allotted to the petitioner because of constraints on the part of the Housing Board and therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for interest at the market rate.

(3.) IT would be difficult in this case to hold that the petitioner is not responsible for non -allotment of a flat. The scheme was that on submission of application a lottery will be held. The lottery was held in the year 1991 and the petitioner was allotted an income group flat no. 6 in Bahadurpur Housing Colony within the town of Patna. The petitioner, however, for her own reasons had some reservation in accepting such allotment and had filed an application on 1.8.1991 to the Chatrman - cum -Managing Director of the Housing Board for allotting her a new flat in place of one which was allotted to her after the lottery. That application in fact was considered and allowed by the Chairman of the Housing Board but then that change could not be materialize because a large scale of bungling was detected in such chain of re -allotment of flat beyond what was given to the allottees in the lottery. The Government, therefore, had restrained the Housing Board from changing such allotment and that is how the matter remained pending.