JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, by this writ petition, has prayed that the respondent Rajasthan Housing Board may be directed to return the amount of Rs. 5373.40p. charged from the petitioner. 2. The petitioner applied for allotment of a house for residential purposes for the Middle Group Scheme and deposited a sum of Rs. 3600/-. As no communication was received for a considerably long period, according to the petitioner, he approached the respondents and presented an a application for allotment of the house. The petitioner, further submitted that a demand notice dated June 8,1983, was issued by the respondent for payment of an amount of Rs. 3521.81 p. but that was not received by the petitioner. Regarding the issuance of this demand, the petitioner was informed when he again went to the office of the respondent No.1 to enquire about the allotment in his favour. Ultimately, by notice No. 10678 dated February 3,1984, the allotment of the house was made in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 5373.40 p. The respondent, by this letter asked the petitioner to deposit Rs. 4862/- as installments for February 1983 to February, 1984 penal interest @ 15% amounting to Rs. 81.76 p. and interest on the installments amounting to Rs. 429.60 prise. The case of the petitioner is that he deposited this amount under coercion and as the house was allotted to the petitioner on February 3,1984, and, therefore, the petitioner was not required to deposit the installments prior to February, 1984, and as he was not required to deposit the installments prior to February, 1984, therefore the question of charging of penal interest as well as the interest on the installments does not arise. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over the judgment of this Court rendered in Gokul Prasad v. The Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board and others (S.B.Civil Writ petition No. 164 of 1985 - decided on April 23, 1985) . The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that a notice on the address, a given by the petitioner, was sent on November 7,1982, and he was asked to deposit the amount of Rs. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that a notice on the address, a given by the petitioner, was sent on November 7,1982, and he was asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 1635/- and to take possession of the house and as the petitioner did not deposit the amount inspite of that notice, the respondents are entitled to charge penal interest as well as the interest chargeable on the installments due. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that though the penalty was also chargeable, but it has not been charged after considering the representation of the petitioner and the respondents thought it proper to waive the penalty amount on the ground that the petitioner might not have received the notice. 3. I have considered the rival submissions. 4. The present case is fully covered by the judgment given in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 164 of 1985 (Gokul Prasad v. the Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board and others) . The petitioner did not receive the letter Annexure.R.1, dated November 7,1982, as well as the Annexure 1, which is clear from the letter dated July 5,1983 (Annexure 2) produced by the petitioner. The petitioner, for the first time, came to know regarding the allotment of the house in his favour only vide letter dated February 3,1984, and the possession over the house was given to the petitioner on February 5,1984. The petitioner was therefore, liable to pay the installments only after February 3,1984, and not prior to that as no prior intimation was received by him. As the petitioner was not liable to pay the installments prior to February, 1984, and, therefore, the question of charging the penal interest as well as the interest on the outstanding installments does not arise. The respondents themselves waived the penalty taking into consideration the fact that the communication dated November 7,1982 was not received by the petitioner. As the petitioner was not liable to pay the installments prior to February, 1984, and, therefore, the question of charging the penal interest as well as the interest on the outstanding installments does not arise. The respondents themselves waived the penalty taking into consideration the fact that the communication dated November 7,1982 was not received by the petitioner. When the penalty was waived by the respondents then the question of charging the interest on the installments due as well as the penal interest does not arise, when the amount of instalment has already been paid, I do not think it proper to pass any order for the refund of the same and that amount may be adjusted in the future installments, but to so far as the charging of penal interest and the interest on the installments outstanding is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to get that amount back from the Rajasthan Housing Board with interest @ 12% per annum as the petitioner was not liable to pay that amount and he had deposited that amount under protest. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed with costs, and the Rajasthan Housing Board is directed to refund Rs. 511.40p. (81.76p. + 429.64p.)to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum.Petition allowed. *******