Judgment J.C. Verma, J.-After completing all the formalties of submitting the applications and depositing the registration amount alongwith seed money amount of Rs. 12,500/-and Rs. 50,000/- respectively, the petitioner was allotted House No. 4/139 on 17th of October, 1992, at Jawahar Nagar Scheme, reserved for the employees of the Rajasthan Housing Board against the registration year 1987. Despite the allotment made and completing formalities the petitioner was some-how not delivered the possession whereas other similarly situated persons who were below in the registration list had been handed-over the possession. The petitioner made representations to the respondent Housing Board for the delivery of the possession. The petitioner was informed vide Annexure 2, by the respondents on 4-7-94, to the effect that because of certain stay order having been obtained by one Shri Sultan Singh, from the High Court, it is not possible to handover the possession of the house to the petitioner. The writ petition filed by Sultan Singh being Writ Petition No. 1606/1992, was ultimately dismissed on 14th November, 1994, with the result that the stay order granted by the High Court in the writ petition also stood vacated. The petitioner after coming to know the tact of dismissal of the writ petition had informed the Respondent No. 2 and again prayed for possession of the house allotted to him vide his application Annexure 3, on 19th November, 1994. 2. Ultimately the petitioner was handed-over the possession but the petitioner has been penalised for no fault of his by including the amount of Rs. 1,70,826/-as interest when no possession letter was issued. The period, when the petitioner was pressing for possession and no possession was delivered, or when the Housing Board was incapable to deliver the possession because of the stay order granted by the High Court, has been counted by the respondents for thrusting the interest on the petitioner, the petitioner raised objections on this count vide his applications sent in the months of May, June, 1995, copies of which have been attached Annexures 5 to 7. 3. On the facts mentioned above, the petitioner has come up in the writ petition for a direction to the respondents to revise the amount mentioned in the letter Annexure 4 and not to charge the interest of Rs. 1,70,826/-& Anr. amount of wrong totaling Rs. 3800/-. 4. 3. On the facts mentioned above, the petitioner has come up in the writ petition for a direction to the respondents to revise the amount mentioned in the letter Annexure 4 and not to charge the interest of Rs. 1,70,826/-& Anr. amount of wrong totaling Rs. 3800/-. 4. Notices having been issued to the respondents, a reply has been filed through one Laxmi Chand Yadav, Officer-Incharge. The respondent Housing Board has admitted that the House No. 4/139 was allotted to the petitioner but because of a stay order issued by the High Court on the writ petition of one Sultan Singh, the possession could not be delivered to the petitioner. The possession of other houses were delivered to other allottees because there was no stay order against any allottee. It is further admitted that on vacation of the stay order, the petitioner has been charged with additional amount including the interest concerning to the period when no possession could be given by the Housing Board. The facts as stated in the petition are admitted. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted to the Court that even though no possession was delivered to the petitioner nor the petitioner was asked to take any possession, but still during the period of stay order obtained by one Sultan Singh in Civil Writ Petition No. 1606/ 1992, the Board is not supposed to suffer the loss. The contention of the counsel for the respondents if accepted shall amount to hold that even the petitioner is not at fault, nor any possession is delivered but still the allottee must be punished for no fault of his. This contention cannot be accepted. Had the possession been delivered along with other allottees, the petitioner would have paid the amount as applicable for the year 1992 ? There is no justification whatsoever with the respondent-Housing Board to charge interest or enhanced rate of the cost of the house as prevalent in the year 1995, instead of in the year 1992, when the possession was scheduled to be handed-over to the petitioner. If the contention of the respondent is accepted that would amount to punishing and penalising an allottee even if he is innocent and even if the fault lies either on Housing Board itself or on third party. If the contention of the respondent is accepted that would amount to punishing and penalising an allottee even if he is innocent and even if the fault lies either on Housing Board itself or on third party. The petitioner could have been punished or penalised if there was any default on his part, but in the present case, the facts are otherwise. This type of injustice cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. It is the primary duty of the Housing Board to hand-over the possession if the formalities before handing-over the possession have been completed and if by any reason whatsoever, not attributable to the allottee, the possession is delayed by the Housing Board, the Housing Board cannot and shall not put such allottee in loss by demanding interest of the period when the Housing Board was itself in error or ask for the enhanced price payable of the year or time when actual handing-over of the possession is made by the Housing Board to the allottee. 6. For the reasons mentioned above the writ petition is allowed with a direction-that the excess amount by way of charging the interest to the tune of Rs. 1,70,826/-shall not be chargeable from the allottee, as no possession was ever otferred or handed-over to the allottee during the relevant period. 7. In regard to the error in total of the amount as pointed by Annexure, 4 if there is any error in the totaling, the Board shall correct the same. For the abovesaid reasons the writ petition is allowed as prayed. It is a case where allottee has been unnecessarily compelled and forced to knock at the door of the High Court and, therefore, the allottee is entitled to the cost of the writ petition which is assessed at Rs. 2,000/-.