N S DHILLAN Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts giving rise to this petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as under :-

(2.) The petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- while registering himself with the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board in the year 1973 for allotment of a house. Vide letter dated 4.12.1980 (Annex. 1), the petitioner was informed that he had been allotted house No. 4/13 GF in Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur and was required to pay the additional sum of Rs. 73,321/- as the balance price thereof. According to the allegation in the writ petition, the petitioner could not deposit the amount in question as his father was suffering from urine trouble and had a serious attack of paralysis and he had spent lot of money for the treatment of his father but the allotment in his favour ' was not cancelled as he had been making requests for extension of time for making payment and, ultimately, vide letter dated 1.2.1982 (Annx.-2), the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,165.10 p. as penal interest at the rate of 15% for the period from 3.5.1981 to 3.2.1982 and penalty in the sum of Rs. 16,000/- besides the above said sum of Rs. 73,321/- for regularisation of the house. The petitioner, thereupon, approached this Court by filing this writ petition and has contended that the amount of penalty could not be demanded by the respondent and that such demand was arbitrary and the only demand that could be made by the respondent could be of interest on the amount in question. In spite of the fact that the respondent had been served long ago, no reply has been filed and it is not pointed out to me as to how the respondent is entitled to charge penalty from the petitioner for late payment of the amount. The terms and conditions mentioned in Annex.-1 show that the petitioner was to pay the amount within four months failing which he could be allowed to deposit the amount by paying 15% interest for further two months and thereafter the allotment was liable to be cancelled. No counter having been filed by the respondent, the allegation in the writ petition that the allotment of the house was not cancelled has to be taken as correct. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to point out to me any term which authorises the respondent to impose penalty on the petitioner, who had not paid the amount due from him. The order demanding the amount of penalty cannot, therefore, be sustained and is, consequently, quashed.

(3.) It is pointed out that under the orders dated 17.9.1984 passed by this court, the petitioner had deposited the amount of penalty subject to the decision of this Court. It is made clear that the petitioner is liable to pay to the respondent interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 73,321/- till the date of deposit of the amount and, if the amount already deposited, including penalty in the sum of Rs. 16,000/-, exceeds the total amount payable by the petitioner including interest at the above said rate the same will be refunded by the respondent to the petitioner with the same rate of interest i.e. at 15% per annum from the date the excess amount was deposited by the petitioner till the date he receives back the amount. The writ petition stands decided accordingly with no orders as to costs.