DAYA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of this petition, has prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.7,57,714/- alongwith the interest at the rate of 24% per annum and to quash the demand relating to interest on the due monthly installments as raised vide demand letter dated 21.2.2018 as well as the interest amount claimed vide demand letter dated 27.3.2018.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department (hereinafter referred to as "UDH") had issued an order dated 19.2.2018 laying down that those allottees who had been allotted houses prior to 1.1.2001 in EWS and LIG (Lower Income Group) level, would be exempted from payment of interest and penalty, if they deposited their pending installments in one go. The said benefit was also extended to those who were allotted houses after 2001 also. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was allotted a house under the said category bearing no.192/382, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur on 30.12.1982 for which the allotment/ possession of letter was issued on 23.1.2009. The Rajasthan Housing Board issued a demand letter for payment of the entire amount upto 21.2.2018 calculating the one single payment mode by calculating monthly installments. However, while issuing the demand interest on due monthly installments of a sum of Rs.7,16,105/- was imposed although the same had also been exempted by the Secretary, Urban Development Department vide notification dated 19.2.2018. Learned counsel further submits that apart from the said amount another demand letter was issued on 27.3.2018 demanding a sum of Rs.29,950/- as additional amount of interest. Learned counsel that the said demand was contrary to the aforesaid decision of the State Government. Learned counsel submits that although the petitioner deposited the entire amount on 22.3.2018, it is submitted that the same was required to be refunded back to her. Learned counsel submits that an application was moved for refund of the said amount but the same has not been refunded on a spacious plea that on the day when refunding application was moved, there was no amount pending with the Housing Board and therefore, the interest amount which has also been deposited cannot be refunded.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved of the denial letter dated 11.5.2018, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this court. Learned counsel submits that once, there was a decision dated 19.2.2018, the same had to be applied to all the persons on or after 19.2.2018 equally. Merely because the petitioner has deposited the amount, the respondent cannot be allowed undue enrichment and the petitioner cannot be placed at a worst position than those who did not deposit the amount.