Judgment 1. This writ petition was filed on 19-12-1986 seeking a direction to the respondent Housing Board to allot a middle income group (M.I.G.) house at Arrah to the petitioner. During the pendency of this application, the Housing Board (vide its letter dated 27-8-92, brought on record as Annexure 1 to a supplementary affidavit filed on 16-10-95 allotted a house to the petitioner at Dalpatpur, Arrah at a cost of Rs. 1,49,379 / as estimated on 30-9-1992. 2. Thus in so far as the allotment of a house is concerned, the grievance of the petitioner does not subsist any longer. However, a limited dispute between the parties relating to the price of the house being charged by the Board still remains subsisting. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to a house at the initial estimated cost of Rs. 90,000.00 and the action of the Housing Board in charging the enhanced price of Rs. 1,50,000.00 is illegal, unfair, unjust and unreasonable. 3. The petitioner in response to an advertisement issued by the Housing Board applied for a M.I.G. house in 1972 and deposited the requisite registration fee of Rs. 50 / -. In I 978, as advised by a notice issued by the Board in the newspapers, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 6,500/ - as earnest money. On 20-6-83, the petitioner also filed an affidavit declaring that he did not have any house/ land in any town and also submitted the required information concerning Income-tax. A receipt showing submission of this affidavit is enclosed as Annexure 1. It is stated in the writ petition that by 1983, 30 houses had been constructed by the Board which were available for allotment to the applicants and accordingly a seniority list of applicants was prepared for allotment of houses on first come first served basis. In this list the petitioners name figured at serial No. 4. A lottery was held on 12-11-1983 for allotment of houses to the applicants in this list. It may be noted here that the lottery was not held to decide as to whether an applicant would get a house or not but to determine as to which house would go to which applicant. In this lottery only 23 houses were allotted to 23 applicants from the list of 30. Seven houses remained unallotted because some of the applicants, for various reasons, were not considered for allotment. In this lottery only 23 houses were allotted to 23 applicants from the list of 30. Seven houses remained unallotted because some of the applicants, for various reasons, were not considered for allotment. Out of seven, three were for different reserved categories and four for the general applicants. 4. Though occupying the fourth position in the seniority list, the petitioner was not given a house. On enquiry, he came to learn that he was not included in the lottery for allotment of a house as the affidavit submitted by him was not in the prescribed pro forma. The petitioner then filed an affidavit in the prescribed pro forma on 23-11-1983 and requested that he should be allotted one of the four houses available in the general quota. No action was taken by the Board on the petitioners request presumably for the reason that the rules of allotment were changed in the meanwhile and hence-forth allotment of houses were to be made on the basis of lottery regardless of the applicants seniority. 5. The petitioner then filed this writ petition before this Court. It was admitted for hearing on 9-9-1987. At the time of its admission, the following order was passed : "The petitioner had applied for allotment of a M.I.G. house at Arrah as early as in the year 1972 and is said to have deposited Rs.6500.00 with the Bihar State Housing Board on 24-7-1978. A list was prepared of 30 persons to whom 30 houses were to be allotted. The petitioner was shown against serial No. 4. Along with the application an affidavit had to be filed which had been filed on behalf of the petitioner. But, as the affidavit was not in proper form, the petitioner was required to file a second affidavit which he had filed on 23-11-1983. It is the case of the Board that, in the meanwhile, on 12-11-1983, the thirty houses were allotted to different persons excluding the petitioner because his application form was not accompanied with proper affidavit.The respondent-Board is directed to file a detailed counter-affidavit enclosing the list of persons whose cases were considered for allotment and the names of the persons whose applications were rejected being defective. Any such counter-affidavit should be filed preferably within three weeks.Mr. Any such counter-affidavit should be filed preferably within three weeks.Mr. S. K. P. Sinha appearing for the Board informed the Court that a lottery is going to be held in accordance with the present regulation in which the name of the petitioner along with others shall be included in respect of the four houses in the general quota which have been constructed at Arrah.No lottery in respect of the said four houses should be held till 31st January, 1988 before which it is expected that this writ application shall be heard and disposed of by this Court. " For various reasons, this application could not be heard and remained pending for all these years. In view of the order dated 9-9-1987, the four houses which had not been allotted in 1982 remain unallotted till now. In the meanwhile the petitioner was given an allotment letter, dated 27-8-1992 by which he has been allotted a house at Dalpatpur, Arrah, at the estimated cost of Rupees 1,49,370.00 (effective date being 30-9-1992). The house given to the petitioner under allotment order dated 27-8-1992 is some other house and not one of the four houses covered by the above quoted stay order. 6. It is not in dispute that in the year, 1983 houses were allotted to the 23 persons at the estimated cost of Rs. 90,000.00 . It is also admitted that in the seniority list prepared before holding the lottery the petitioners named figured at serial No. 4. It is also not denied that before holding the lottery on 12-11-1983, no intimation was given to the petitioner that his affidavit being not in the prescribed pro forma, his case will not be considered unless he filed a fresh affidavit in the prescribed pro forma. The affidavit filed by the petitioner on 20-6-83 has also not been produced so that this Court could examine the defect in the affidavit and Judge how far the authorities were justified in excluding the petitioners case from consideration on account of the defective affidavit. Although by order dated 9-9-1987, specific direction was given to the Board to file a detailed counteraffidavit enclosing the list of applicants whose cases were considered for allotment and the names of those whose applications were rejected being defective, no such counter-affidavit has been filed till today. Although by order dated 9-9-1987, specific direction was given to the Board to file a detailed counteraffidavit enclosing the list of applicants whose cases were considered for allotment and the names of those whose applications were rejected being defective, no such counter-affidavit has been filed till today. These are the facts and circumstances which must be taken into account while considering the justification of the Boards action in demanding the enhanced price of Rs. 1,49,379 / - for the house allotted to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the Board has filed a counter-affidavit in course of hearing of this case wherein it is stated that the cost of each of the four houses covered by the stay order of this Court has been determined at Rupees 3,73,719.00 as on 31-12-1995. In the calculation which is given at Annexure-A to this counter-affidavit, the cost of the house, as on 30-11-1983, is shown as Rs. 86,913.00 ; adding to it the interests for the period 1-12-1983 to 31-12-1995, the cost as on 31-12-95 has been determined at Rs. 3,73,719/ -. In my opinion, this calculation relating to the four houses bears no relevance to this case for the simple reason that the house allotted to the petitioner is not one of these houses but some other house. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board strenuously argued that the Board worked on the basis of no profit and no loss. It was submitted that the Board did not have its own funds but borrowed money from different financial institutions in order to procure lands and build houses. It was further pointed out that on the borrowing made by it, the Board was obliged to pay interests to the financial institutions. It was inevitable, therefore, that interests should be one of the factors in determining the cost of a house allotted by the Board. It was submitted that in charging interest the Board simply passed on to the individual allottee the interest which the Board itself was liable to pay on its borrowings. Learned counsel in support of his submission placed reliance on a decision by a Division Bench of this Court (of which I was also a member) in CWJC No. 941/1992 disposed of on 19-8-92. 9. Learned counsel in support of his submission placed reliance on a decision by a Division Bench of this Court (of which I was also a member) in CWJC No. 941/1992 disposed of on 19-8-92. 9. On a number of occasions, this Court has considered the financial aspects of the functioning of the Board and I am not unconscious that the Board has to pay interests on its borrowings. It is also true that in view of the nature and functions of the Board, the Court normally tries to protect it against pecuniary losses and tries to rescue it from such losses as far as possible. But in a given case where the Board is likely to incur some pecuniary loss not on account of any fault on the part of the allottee but solely due to its own laches or even some mala fide action, it will be quite unreasonable, unjust and unfair to shift its loss to the allottee. 10. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel was given in a case with a different set of facts. The petitioner of that case coming to this Court initially for a direction to the Board to allot him a plot of land failed to get any favourable order. He then went to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1892/ 1987. The appeal was disposed of by the Supreme Court by a brief order in the following terms : "Special leave granted. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case we feel that the appropriate order that should be passed in this case is that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 should be directed to allot one High Income Group site to the appellant as soon as the stay order passed by the High Court restraining respondents 1 and 2 from allotting HIG site are vacated and respondents 2 and 3 are able to allot such sites. We accordingly issue a direction to respondents 2 and 3. This appeal is disposed of." Following the direction of the Supreme Court, he was allotted a plot at the price of Rupees 1,01,108.00 . Being aggrieved by the price charged by the Board, he again came to this Court in CWJC No. 941/1992 claiming that the price of the plot should not be more than Rs. 40,980 /- at which price it was given to the other allottee in the year, 1980. Being aggrieved by the price charged by the Board, he again came to this Court in CWJC No. 941/1992 claiming that the price of the plot should not be more than Rs. 40,980 /- at which price it was given to the other allottee in the year, 1980. This Court after hearing the parties found that the material facts and circumstances were as follows: "From the counter-affidavit it appears that though the petitioner had got his name registered in the year 1965 for the allotment of a plot in the Housing Department of the State Government (the Board was then yet to come into existence) he failed to deposit the earnest money in time. He finally deposited the earnest money on 1-2-1980 after obtaining permission from the Chairman. This delay in the deposit of earnest money put his name much below in the seniority list of the applicants and his name could not be considered at par with the other applicants, who had deposited earnest money in time. It is further stated that the petitioner has been given the plot in question following the orders of the Supreme Court and on the basis of the allotment order issued to the petitioner he has already deposited the money demanded by the Board and has also executed the agreement with the Board and has taken possession of the plot in 1989 after making payment of the demanded money. It is further stated that the price of the plot was worked out at the rate of Rs. 21,600 / - per katha as on 31-3-1984 and from that date till the date of allotment interest @ 11 per cent per annum has been charged over the price of the plot and, thus, the price of the plot came to Rs. 94,616.00 The calculations were duly communicated to the petitioner. It is also stated that having knowledge of the price and the interest the petitioner paid the money demanded by the Board and executed the agreement. These statements have not been denied from the side of the petitioner." (Emphasis added)It was in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances that this Court declined to interfere in the matter. The position in this case is entirely different. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was excluded from consideration in 1983 for extraneous reasons assigning a ground wholly untenable in law. The position in this case is entirely different. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was excluded from consideration in 1983 for extraneous reasons assigning a ground wholly untenable in law. The Board has not produced any materials before this Court to dispel the suspicion arising from undisputed facts and the allegation made by the petitioner. As noted above, even the affidavit filed by the petitioner has not been produced so as to examine whether the Board was justified in holding it defective and, for that reasons, to treat the petitioners application as incomplete. 11 In the facts and circumstances of this case, I have no hesitation in holding that the action of the Board in excluding the petitioner from the lottery in 1983 was wholly unreasonable, unjustified and arbitrary and it is, therefore, no one else but the Board itself which is responsible for the increase in the cost of the house which was allotted to the petitioner after a delay of nine years. 12. For the reasons stated above, I allow this writ petition and direct the Board to allot the house (under allotment order dated 27-81992) to the petitioner for the same price at which the 23 houses were given to the allottees in the year, 1983. On payments made by the petitioner, the necessary steps for execution of documents and handing over possession will be completed expeditiously and without any delay. 13. In the result, this application is allowed to the extent indicated above. The order restraining the Board from allotting the four houses is vacated. The Board is henceforth free to allot the four houses in question in accordance with law.Application allowed.