Order Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the order dated 5.8.95 issued under the signature of Executive Engineer (respondent no. 3) whereby he has been informed that the prevalent price of the flat allotted to him being Flat no. 7MF-7/27 has been estimated to Rs. 2,41,590.00 and he has been directed to deposit Rs. 15,642/- over and above Rs. 81,194/- already deposited by him and to pay the monthly instalments mentioned in the said letter. A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. He has further prayed for directing the respondents to accept Rs. 50,000/- only as a price of the aforesaid flat as it was prevalent at the time when similar flats were allotted to other persons. During the course of hearing a supplementary affidavit has been tiled praying therein that an appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to refund the money deposited by him with interest @ 10% and a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- as an exemplary cost. In other words, he has now confined his writ application only with regard to refund of money deposited by him for allotment of MIG flat by the respondent Housing Board. 3. The petitioner, an employee of the State Government at the relevant time was working as a Probation Officer, Home (Jail) Department, Bihar, Patna and superannuated in the year, 1992. In pursuance of an advertisement by the Board inviting applications for allotment of flats, the petitioner sought permission to deposit registration fee and the earnest money for allotment of MIG flat at Patna in special circumstances. The Chairman of the Board granted permission to deposit the registration fee and the earnest money and in pursuance of which he got himself registered by the Board by depositing Rs. 50/-. He filed an application and also deposited Rs. 6500/- as earnest money. The petitioner was expecting that he will be allotted the flat by 1982 but when he was not allotted the same his wife filed a petition before the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister by order dated 28.7.82 ordered that the petitioner will be allotted twin type of MIG flat out of government quota on compassionate ground vide Annexure-4. In spite of that he was not allotted the flat. In spite of that he was not allotted the flat. However, in 1983 a notice was published in the newspaper on behalf of the Board asking the applicants to inspect the seniority list and their registration with the Board in between 24.9.83 and 30.9.83. The petitioner inspected the list and found that his name was missing and therefore he represented the matter before the Board and he was informed that his name has been recorded at serial no. 711 amongst the registered applicants for MIG flats. However, inspite of his best efforts he was not allotted the flat. 4. In a public interest litigation being C.W.J.C. No. 3991/87 directions were issued by the High Court to make allotment of the flats/plots to the applicants in accordance with the direction given therein. Thereafter a lottery was held on 25.2.94 and the petitioner was allotted MIG flat no. 7MF-7/27 at Bahadurpur and thereafter the allotment letter dated 27.3.94 was issued. However, in the said letter dated 27.3.94 it was mentioned that the tentative cost of the said flat was estimated at Rs. 2,02,485.00/- instead of Rs. 50,000/- or any other approximate reasonable price which was announced in the year, 1980. The said letter was also not sent to the petitioner at the address about which intimation was given to the Board. However, after receipt of the allotment order the petitioner approached the Executive Engineer of the Housing Board and objected to the exorbitant price of the flat in 'question and requested the authority to determine the price as prevailing in the year, 1983-84 and thereafter the petitioner was given to understand that he has to deposit Rs. 80,994.00 as the cost of the MIG flat and Rs. 200/- as legal expenses and accordingly, on 9.9.94 he deposite, 9 Rs. 74,694.00 as he has already deposited Rs. 6500/- as an earnest money. Inspite of the best efforts by the petitioner the agreement was not executed and thereafter the impugned letter dated 5.8.95 contained in Annexure-1 has been issued informing the estimated cost of Rs. 2,40,590.00 and directed to deposit the amount as mentioned in the said letter. 5. According to the petitioner the demand of the aforesaid price is arbitrary as the petitioner applied in 1980 and the price increased due to delay in allotment of the flat for which the petitioner is not responsible. 2,40,590.00 and directed to deposit the amount as mentioned in the said letter. 5. According to the petitioner the demand of the aforesaid price is arbitrary as the petitioner applied in 1980 and the price increased due to delay in allotment of the flat for which the petitioner is not responsible. On the other hand the Board is responsible as, such the Board cannot demand the aforesaid price. On the other hand the flat should be allotted to him at the price which was prevailing in 1982-83. 6. The Board has filed the counter affidavit wherein it has admitted the fact with regard to the registration of the petitioner with the Board and about depositing the earnest money by him. The Board has also admitted that the lottery was held and the petitioner was allotted the aforesaid flat in question and he was directed by letter dt. 13.5.95 to deposit the amount and to get the agreement executed but even then he did not do the same and accordingly, a letter dated 5.8.95 contained in Annexure-1 was issued to him directing to deposit the required money and to execute the agreement. The case of the Board with regard to increase in the price of the flat is that the prices of the flats are tentatively assessed at the prevailing price levelled of the year of the advertisement with a view to assess the demand of the flats in the various categories. On receipt of the demand schemes are formulated and submitted to HUDCO (Housing Urban Development Corp.) for sanctioning of loan and for construction of the flats. The Board has no fund of its own and the flats are constructed from the loans received from various financial institutions like HUDCO, LIC, GIC etc. The loans are released in different instalments at certain rate of interest and the interest goes on in accordance with the passage of time. The costing is done by adding the prevailing interest for the period year-wise. Hence the prevailing interest is charged from the allottees only as interest on the estimated cost. The loans are released in different instalments at certain rate of interest and the interest goes on in accordance with the passage of time. The costing is done by adding the prevailing interest for the period year-wise. Hence the prevailing interest is charged from the allottees only as interest on the estimated cost. It is further stated that as the Board has no fund of its own the flats are constructed from the loan amount sanctioned by HUDCO and other institutions but HUDCO grants loan to the extent of about 60/70% of the cost and the rest is to be realised from the allottees in terms of the stipulations made in the regulations known as Bihar State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estate) Regulation, 1983 (hereinafter referred to 'this regulation'. As all the allottees of the scheme have not deposited the required initial money as mentioned in the allotment letter nor did they execute the agreement nor deposited the ensuing instalments the flats could not be completed in all respects and the cost escalated due to incidence of interest and increase in the cost of labour and materials during the intervening period. Thus, the cost demanded from the petitioner is not arbitrary and on the other hand is assessed in the manner as stated above. According to the Board as the petitioner did not deposit the instalments to execute the agreement within time he is not entitled to the refund of the entire amount. On the other hand in terms of the regulation 33(3), 20% of the total amount shall be forfeited and thereafter only balance amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. 7. In view of the petition filed by the petitioner now the only question is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of the entire money with interest on cost or 200% should be deducted as stated by the Board. 8. The admitted facts are that the petitioner applied for allotment of MIG flat in the year, 1980 and the allotment has been made in the year, 1994. The assertion made on behalf of the petitioner that he was discriminated in the allotment of the MIG flat is not supported by any material. On the other hand it appears that his position was at serial no. The assertion made on behalf of the petitioner that he was discriminated in the allotment of the MIG flat is not supported by any material. On the other hand it appears that his position was at serial no. 711 in the list and in pursuance of a lottery in accordance with the direction of this Court he was allotted the flat in question in 1994. As such the price which was prevalent in the year, 1994 has to be charged from the petitioner. The stand of the Board is that the estimated cost is not changed. Only the interest given to the financial institutions on the estimated cost are added alongwith other cost such as escalation of the labour cost etc. The demand of price by adding the interest on the estimated cost has been found to be permissible in law by this Court vide Annexure-B. Thus, the price demanded by the Board can not said to be illegal and impermissible in law. The petitioner cannot claim to have the allotment of the flat at the price which was prevalent at the time of advertisement as the price given at the time of advertisement was only the estimated price. 9. In view of the modified prayer made by the petitioner the question is as to whether he is entitled to the relief prayed for by him or not. 10. According to the Board's Regulation 33 (3) if the applicants fails to pay the amount within the said specified period the allotment shall be cancelled automatically and 20% of the deposited amount shall be forfeited and the balance amount shall be refunded. 11. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that the allotment has been cancelled. Filing of an application before the Board for allotment of flat by the petitioner was with expectation that the same will be allotted to him within a reasonable time. No doubt, the object of the Board is to provide flats/plots to the needy people within a reasonable price and within a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the Board is not fulfilling the object and the applicants are not getting the lands/flats within a reasonable time as a result of which the cost of the flats increases abnormally. 12. No doubt, the object of the Board is to provide flats/plots to the needy people within a reasonable price and within a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the Board is not fulfilling the object and the applicants are not getting the lands/flats within a reasonable time as a result of which the cost of the flats increases abnormally. 12. There can be no dispute that if the flat would have been allotted to the petitioner within a reasonable time from the date of making the application the price would have been within the reasonable limit but as the allotment has been made after such a long time the price has increased and it has become beyond the reach of the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount as he has retired from the government service and at present he has no means to pay the amount demanded by the Board. In such a situation, if he wants that his amount should be refunded then the same should be refunded to him without forfeiting 20% provided under the regulation specially when no cancellation order has been brought to my notice by the Board. 13. Accordingly, the Board is directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 81, 194/- within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Board. So far the payment of interest or compensation is concerned, there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of allotment of the flat in the sense that person below him in the list has been allotted the flat earlier than the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is not a fit case where a direction can be issued for payment of any interest to the petitioner or compensation as prayed for by him. However, if the amount deposited by the petitioner is not refunded within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order then he is entitled to the interest @ 12% from the date of the order. 14. With the aforesaid observation this application stands disposed of.