JUDGMENT 1. - This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.7.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition was decided with the order and direction as under : "In the result, the writ petition is dismissed so far as claim of the petitioner regarding cost of construction is concerned. The respondent-Board is, however, directed to pay interest to the petitioner on the amount of Rs. 70,000/- at the same rate at which nationalised bank used to charge interest on the money advanced by it. This interest shall be paid to the petitioner from the date of deposit till 8.6.1983. Amount of interest should be recalculated and paid to the petitioner with in two months, failing which the petitioner shall be paid further interest at the prevalent bank rates with effect from the date of this order. Parties are left to bear their own costs." 2. The appellant i.e. the original petitioner preferred the writ petition on 16.8.1989 against the Rajasthan Housing Board with the prayers as under : (i) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction declaring that on the grounds stated in the writ petition omission to allot house to your humble petitioner was wholly illegal, unjust and unfair; (ii) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the respondent-Board not to charge and to refund the excess amount of approximately Rs. One lakh which they have collected from the petitioner over and above the price of the house illegally allotted to Smt. Sudha Goyal for a sum of Rs. 1,28,000/- sometime in or about August, 1979. (iii) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the respondent-Authorities to pay to your humble petitioner interest at bank rate on the amounts deposited by her till August, 1979 upto 8.6.1983 when another house was allotted to your humble petitioner. (iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of your humble petitioner. 3. The appellant-petitioner came with the case that she was an employee of the Government of Rajasthan (Lecturer in Geology at Government College, Kota). (iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of your humble petitioner. 3. The appellant-petitioner came with the case that she was an employee of the Government of Rajasthan (Lecturer in Geology at Government College, Kota). Sometime in January, 1978, an application was made to the Rajasthan Housing Board for allotment of a house in High Income Group (hereinafter to be referred as HIG) on a plot of land admeasuring 50 x 90 feet in Kota and the registration fee of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited as required by the Housing Board. It is averred in the writ petition that registration for allotment of the house in HIG was earlier made in the joint name of the petitioner along with her husband, but later on, an application was submitted for change in the registration in the name of the petitioner alone which was allowed by the Resident Engineer of the Housing Board vide his letter No. 3911 dated 23.12.1978. At the time of registration for allotment of house in HIG on a plot of land measuring 50 x 90 feet, the petitioner was the sole applicant and the only person registered in HIG and the Housing Board started construction of only one house of the size of 50 x 90 feet at Vigyan Nagar, Kota. Respondent-Board vide its letter No. 6639 dated 28.3.1979 asked the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in advance on assurance that the petitioner being the only applicant for this size of plot for an outright purchase category, the house which was under construction at Vigyan Nagar, two shall be allotted to her. Contents of this letter dated 28.3.1979 sent to the petitioner under the signatures of the REsident Engineer (I), Rajasthan Housing Board, Kota are reproduced as under : "As you have got yourself registered with us in HIG Scheme, as such, you are requested to please deposit the following amount, for the size of the house, you are interested to take. The balance cost of the house shall have to be deposited by you as per the separate letter being issued to you. 50' x 90' Rs. 60,000/- for those who have deposited registration amount of Rs. 10,000/ Rs. 63,000/- for those who have deposited Rs. 7,000/- as registration Amount. 40' x 90' Rs. The balance cost of the house shall have to be deposited by you as per the separate letter being issued to you. 50' x 90' Rs. 60,000/- for those who have deposited registration amount of Rs. 10,000/ Rs. 63,000/- for those who have deposited Rs. 7,000/- as registration Amount. 40' x 90' Rs. 17,500/- for those, who have deposited Rs. 10,000/- as registration amount Rs. 20,500/- for those, who have deposited Rs. 7,000/- as registration amount. The above amount has to be deposited latest by 15.4.1979. You are also requested to please fill in the enclosed form." 4. The petitioner has stated that she deposited the required sum in United Commercial Bank, Kota. After the completion of the construction of the house as aforesaid, sometime in July, 1979, the house should have been allotted to the petitioner without drawing any lottery as no person other than the petitioner was registered in HIG and yet the lottery was purposely drawn by the authorities of the Housing Board on 9.8.1979 and in that lottery, the names of two other persons who had not even deposited the required sum of Rs. 60,000/- were overnight planted in this category, discarding all the rules and principles of fair play with a view to earn the pleasure and favour of certain influential people such as Shri K.K. Goyal, the then Union Minister. Under the pretext of drawing lottery for the said house in the said category one Smt. Sudha Goyal was overnight planted and ultimately the authorities of the Housing Board succeeded in their object of allotting the said house to said Smt. Sudha Goyal, a close relation of the then Union Minister, Shri K.K. Goyal. She (petitioner-appellant), therefore, submitted the representation dated 24.8.1979 to the Com- missioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, J;tipur. Respondent-Board vide its letter dated 8.1.1980 informed the petitioner that a decision had been taken by the Allotment Committee in its meeting dated 10.12.1979 that another house measuring 50 x 90 feet which is under construction in Vigyan Nagar, Kota shall be allotted to the petitioner on its completion. After a period of about two years, the Resident Engineer of the respondent-Board at Kota informed the petitioner vide his letter dated 15.2.1982 that a house measuring 50 x 90 feet at Vigyan Nagar, Kota has been reserved for the petitioner and she was asked to give her consent. After a period of about two years, the Resident Engineer of the respondent-Board at Kota informed the petitioner vide his letter dated 15.2.1982 that a house measuring 50 x 90 feet at Vigyan Nagar, Kota has been reserved for the petitioner and she was asked to give her consent. The petitioner gave her consent for allotment of house No. 2H-1. Despite the consent, the Housing Board did not give the possession of the said house to the petitioner for sufficiently long time and thereupon, a representation was made by her husband on her behalf to the respondent-Board on or about 1.12.1982. The Allotment Committee of the respondent-Board in its meeting dated 18.4.1983 considered the representation and in the minutes of this meeting dated 18.4.1983, it was recorded that at the relevant time, the petitioner was the only person registered in HIG and allotment of the house to her was L certain; that till the date of the drawing of the lottery no other person had deposited sum of Rs. 60,000/- in accordance with the relevant rules for registration in HIG; that on account of overnight inclusion of two other persons, the petitioner could not get the house and that house was allotted to Smt Sudha Goyal; that Smt. Sudha Goyal was not entitled for that house and that house should have been allotted to the petitioner alone. On this factual premise recorded in the minutes of the meeting datd 18.4.1983 of the Allotment Com- mittee presided over by the Chairman of the Rajasthan Housing Board, a decision was taken that house allotted to Smt. Sudha Goyal may be cancelled and the petitioner may be allotted a new house of the same size i.e. 50 x 90 feet and further that cost of the land be charged from the petitioner at the same rate at which it was charged for the land on which the house was allotted to Smt. Sudha Goya; that the administrative charges to be recovered from the petitioner should also be at the same level i.e. at par with the house allotted to Smt. Sudha Goyal. However, the cost of construction to be charged from the petitioner was resolved to be on the basis of revised rates. Copy of the minutes of this meeting have been placed on record with the application as Annexure-6. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. However, the cost of construction to be charged from the petitioner was resolved to be on the basis of revised rates. Copy of the minutes of this meeting have been placed on record with the application as Annexure-6. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was deposited on or about 8.6.1983 when the letter of allotment was issued as per the decision taken in the Housing Allotment Committee's meeting dated 4.6.1983. The petitioner was not satisfied with that decision as aforesaid and continued to represent before the respondent-Board that the cost of construction of the new house should also be kept at par with the cost of the house which had been charged from Smt. Sudha Goyal and that this cost of construction should not be taken from her on the basis of the revised rates. The cost was protested by the petitioner before the respondent-Board that she could not be penalised for payment of higher price i.e. the escalated price because there was no lapse or fault on her part and she could not be required to pay on account of the willful lapses or acts of commission or omission on the part of the authorities of the Housing Board in making allotment of the house to Smt. Sudha Goyal. She has stated that a substantial amount paid by her had remained with the Housing Board for a considerable period without any allotment in her favour since 1979 and therefore, she was entitled to interest on the said amount. Her case was that she had not been allotted the house in the year 1979 to which she was duly entitled, otherwise she would have used the same and thus, she had been wrongly deprived of the enjoyment or benefits of the house till 1983 and on this account, she is entitled to the interest at the bank rates on the amount deposited by her. It is the case of the petitioner that despite several representations when no just and fair relief was granted to the petitioner, she made a further representation to the Chairman of the Housing Board quoting instances of other identical cases and submitting in the representation that in the case of one Shri Kabir Mistri and Shri Balmukund, the Housing Board had taken a decision in its meeting dated 29.8.1984 to charge the same amount for allotment of the new house in place of the earlier allotment of the house. The Chairman of the Housing Board though recorded on this representation that the Housing Board had committed a mistake in not giving the house to her when she was the only person eligible to get the plot of 50 x 90 feet and two others were included in the lottery and it was only when she persisted, the Board agreed to make amends for charging the same price of land, interest rate and administrative charges as were charged from Smt. Sudha Goyal. On the question of charging the cost of construction, it was observed that same has to be charged on the basis of revised rates. The petitioner's request for charging from her the same cost as was charged from Smt. Sudha Goyal was not accepted and ultimately, it was ordered on 14.9.1988 that an interest rate at the rate of 10% per annum be paid to the petitioner on the sum of Rs. 70,000/- for the period the money deposited remained with the Board as being provided to other allottees. The petitioner continued to represent her case before the authorities that same price be charged from her as was charged from Smt. Sudha Goyal. 5. The Housing Board vide its letter dated 22.5.1989 finally informed the petitioner that in accordance with the decision of the Chairman, a Voucher for payment of Rs. 10,299/- only was being forwarded as the amount of set off. It is stated in the writ petition that even this, amount had not been paid to her. It is the further case of the petitioner that she had to pay approximately Rs. 2,25,000/- as price of the new house newly contracted and allotted. It is stated in para 20 of the writ petition that the earlier house of the same size constructed and allotted to Smt. Sudha Goyal was, in fact, her entitlement. It is the further case of the petitioner that she had to pay approximately Rs. 2,25,000/- as price of the new house newly contracted and allotted. It is stated in para 20 of the writ petition that the earlier house of the same size constructed and allotted to Smt. Sudha Goyal was, in fact, her entitlement. Smt. Sudha Goyal was charged a sum of Rs. 1,28,000/- only and thus, there was a difference of Rs. 2,25,000 - 1,28,000/- Rs. 97,000/-. The petitioner thus felt aggrieved against the action of the Housing Board in not allowing her the allotment of House No. 2H-1 at Vigyan Nagar, Kota. On the basis of the averments as above, the petition was filed. 6. On behalf of the Rajasthan Housing Board, the petitioner's case was sought to be traversed through reply dated 11.5.1992, to which a rejoinder dated 7.9.1992 was filed. In the reply as aforesaid, it was stated by the Housing Board that Smt. Sudha Goyal had been registered earlier and she has deposited the registration fee of Rs. 10,000/- on 6.1.1978 while the petitioner deposited this amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 11.1.1978. That Shri S.K. Jerath had deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 13.1.1978 as he was initially an applicant in MIG-B category, but later on opted for HIG and deposited the amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 28.5.1979. It is also the case of the respondent that in fact, at Vigyan Nagar, Kota all houses of HIG were constructed on main Jaipur-Jhalawar Road on the plots of the size of 40 x 90 feet. However, there was one corner plot in which there was more land and as such in this plot of 50 x 90 feet one house was constructed which was in the same row in which other houses were constructed. The petitioner had also given option of her choice of 50 x 90 feet house i.e. HIG-1, that there were many other applicants in HIG in January, 1978, but they had applied for 40 x 90 feet houses only. It is wrong that the respondent had started the construction of 50 x 90 feet house since the petitioner was the only application for 50 x 90 feet house. It is wrong that the respondent had started the construction of 50 x 90 feet house since the petitioner was the only application for 50 x 90 feet house. It has been stated that according to the instructions contained in the registration book there was no requirement for depositing any amount after deposition of registration fee and before issuing allotment letter. That the then Resident Engineer had issued the letter without any justification and in order to give priority to the petitioner because learned counsel Mr. P.N. Bhandari, who was initially an applicant with the petitioner remained posted as Collector, Kota from 1976 to 1978. That the petitioner had deposited Rs. 49,000/- on 6.4.1979 and did not deposit Rs. 60,000/-. There was no rule or instruction for giving priority to the petitioner since she had deposited Rs. 49,000/-. There were three eligible applicants in HIG-1 category for 50x90 feet house and as such a draw of lots was drawn in accordance with rules. That Smt. Sudha Goyal was registered before the petitioner and had given her priority/option for HIG-1 house of 50 x 90 feet and therefore, she was rightly included in the lottery. That under the Scheme of 1977, a person registered under the said Scheme could give only one category of the houses and not more than one option was permissible. Contrary to the said instructions of one option two choices were deliberately allowed on the basis of the letter to give undue favour to Smt. Sudha Goyal, which has been placed on record as Annexure-2. 7. The petitioner had given the option for of the house of 50x90 feet. It was reiterated that the other applicants of HIG group had applied for and opted for the house of the category of 40 x 90 feet. This is all about the pleadings of the parties. Besides this an affidavit dated 12.10.1992 had been filed on behalf of the Housing Board by its Additional Chief Engineer (P&M) in compliance of the Court's order dated 28.8.1992 on which date the relevant record was also summoned. One more additional affidavit of Shri Shekhar Kumar Shivhare dated 6.1.1993 had been filed. 8. Besides this an affidavit dated 12.10.1992 had been filed on behalf of the Housing Board by its Additional Chief Engineer (P&M) in compliance of the Court's order dated 28.8.1992 on which date the relevant record was also summoned. One more additional affidavit of Shri Shekhar Kumar Shivhare dated 6.1.1993 had been filed. 8. On the basis of the pleadings as aforesaid and the materials available on record, the learned Single Judge has found that the petitioner was not entitled for relief with regard to the cost of construction, but was entitled to the interest on the amount of Rs. 70,000/- and the same shall be payable to the petitioner from the date of deposit till 8.6.1983 and this amount of interest should be recalculated and paid to the petitioner within two months, failing which the petitioner shall be paid further interest at the prevalent bank rate with effect from the date of the order. 9. The Rajasthan Housing Board has not preferred any appeal against the order as has been passed by the learned Single Judge. However, the appellant- petitioner has challenged this order passed by the learned Single Judge through this appeal and has claimed that her claim with regard to the cost of construction should also be allowed. It has also submitted that the excess amount deposited by the petitioner has to be paid back to her with interest. In support of the case, learned counsel for the appellant has cited the following cases 1. Hanuman Prasad Meena v. Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr., SBCWP No. 3052 of 1993, Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 4.1.1994 ; 2. Rajasthan Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur v. Shri H.P. Meena, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 292 of 1994, Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 6.5.1994 ; 3. Miss Sunita Mathur v. Rajasthan Housing Board, SBCWP No. 5809 of 1997 Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 23.7.1998 ; 4. Smt. Preeti Agarwal v. Rajasthan Housing Board, SBCWP No. 4265 of 1998 Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 6.8.1999 ; 5. Sovintorg (India) v. State Bank of India, New Delhi, Civil Appeal No. 823 of 1992 decided on 11.8.1999, (1999) 6 SCC 113 ; 6. Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5329 of 1996, (2000) 4 SCC 113 ; 7. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Sovintorg (India) v. State Bank of India, New Delhi, Civil Appeal No. 823 of 1992 decided on 11.8.1999, (1999) 6 SCC 113 ; 6. Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5329 of 1996, (2000) 4 SCC 113 ; 7. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. M/s. Nathabhai Desaibhai Patel, Civil Appeal No. 1376 of 1969, decided on 15.9.1971, (1972) 4 SCC 396 ; 8. State of Kerala & Ors. v. V. Narayana Pillai (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7415 of 1993 decided on 1.12.1999, (2000) 10 SCC 265 ; 9. Jagdish Rai & Brothers v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 2541 of 1988, decided on 19.3.1999, (1999) 3 SCC 257 . 10. Mr. Shyam Arya, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that whereas the record had been perused by the learned Single Judge to which there is a reference in the impugned order also, we should hear the case not only on the basis of the pleadings but also with the aid of the record. We, therefore, permitted learned counsel for the respondent Board to argue the matter with the records and the pleadings. On the basis of the record, it has been argued by Mr. Shyam Arya that in fact, the present appellant had applied for allotment of house on hire purchase basis and not on the basis of outright sale. Whereas she had not applied on the outright sale, she could to be considered for allotment of this house in the Higher Income Group and so far as, two other persons namely Smt. Sudha Goyal and Shri Jerath are concerned, they had applied on the basis of outright sale and therefore, they had been rightly included in the lot, the appellant was not the right for incumbent and the only applicants in HIG were Smt. Sudha Goyal and Shri Jerath who had been sent the letter dated 28.3.1979 and it was in response to this letter that they had sent their applications in which the factum of outright sale was specifically mentioned. It has been submitted by Mr. It has been submitted by Mr. Shyam Arya that there is no question of planting of any new application and whereas the applicant's (Smt. Kaushalya) name was not found in the lottery and name of Smt. Sudha Goyal was found in the lottery, she was allotted the house in question and appellant cannot have any legitimate grievance in this regard so as to claim cost of construction as was charged from Smt. Sudha Goyal and even the minutes of meeting show that decision in that meeting was to take the actual cost of construction from the appellant. He has also submitted that there is no prayer with regard to resolution in question and hence, this grievance could not be entertained and no petition for the recovery of any such amount is maintainable. He has also submitted that the appellant had also not deposited the whole amount as was required by her and then it was not necessary for Smt. Sudha Goyal to deposit any amount as she had applied on the basis of the outright sale and there was no requirement of any pre-deposit in case of outright sale. In support of his submission Mr. Shyam Arya placed reliance on the following decisions : 1. Delhi Development Authority v. Pushpendra Kumar Jain, reported in 1994 JT (6) 292 ; 2. K.P. Ganguly v. University of Lucknow, reported in AIR 1980 Vol. 71 SC 162 . 11. Besides this, he has also cited an unreported decision of this Court dated 19.12.1996 in the case of M/s. National Advertising Co. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., i.e. SBCWP No. 5454 of 1992 wherein it was observed that writ petition was not the proper remedy for the petitioner to move for refund of the amount on the basis that the amount so deposited was under protest. 12. We have heard the submissions made by both the sides, have also gone through the pleadings of the parties, additional affidavits, have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge have also gone through the relevant record as was made available for our perusal by Mr. Shyam Arya, learned counsel for the respondent-Board and Mr. P.N. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant was also allowed to look into the records as were produced before us. Shyam Arya, learned counsel for the respondent-Board and Mr. P.N. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant was also allowed to look into the records as were produced before us. We find that the following facts are not in dispute : i. That the appellant had initially applied in HIG and the mode of payment as was chosen by her was hire purchase and she had categorically claimed HIG-2 (50 x 90 feet); ii. Smt. Sudha Goyal had applied for Higher Income Group on the basis of outright sale, but she had initially mentioned category- 1 i.e. 40 x 90 feet and later on, in response to the letter dated 28.3.1979 in application form; iii. While sending application form she applied for 50 x 90; feet as well as 40 x 90 feet i.e. both the houses; iv. One Shri S.K. Jerath who had initially got himself registered r under Middle Income Group, subsequently applied for change of this group to HIG on the basis of his increased income and in response to the letter dated 28.3.1979 sent to him by the Housing Board, he also applied for house of 50 x 90 feet as well as 40 x 90 feet and chose on the basis of the outright sale. 13. That the record as has been made available for our perusal by Mr. Shyam Arya shows that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was initially deposited or registration in HIG on 11.1.1978 for enrolment of the appellant and later on 4.4.1979, a sum of Rs. 49,000/- was deposited. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- was deposited on 11.7.1983, again a sum of Rs. 82,000/- on 4.8.1983, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 5.8.1983 and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 9.9.1983 was deposited. So far Smt. Sudha Goyal is concerned, of course in her form of registration No. 4016 dated 6.11.1978, she had mentioned the category of -1 in column 6(a) & column 6(b), she indicated the term of the payment as outright sale. The column 6(b) of this application form for registration in HIG shows the term of payment whether outright sale/hire purchase. Therefore, it was open for any applicant in HIG Group to opt any of the two modes. It is, of course, true that in the general registration scheme of 1977 to which our attention has been invited by Mr. The column 6(b) of this application form for registration in HIG shows the term of payment whether outright sale/hire purchase. Therefore, it was open for any applicant in HIG Group to opt any of the two modes. It is, of course, true that in the general registration scheme of 1977 to which our attention has been invited by Mr. Shyam Arya, provides in its para 4(iv) that houses in HIG Group shall be available only through mode of outright sale, but we have noticed that this general registration scheme of 1977 meant for the Ajmer, Bikaner, Bharatpur, Bhilwara, Chittorgarh, Jhunjhunu, Kota, Pali, Sikar, Alwar, Udaipur, Jodhpur and Ganganagar cities gives the dates of on and from 15.7.1977 to 31.12.1977 and it has also been provided in para 2 of this scheme that ordinarily the registration schemes are issued every year. No scheme for the year prior to 1977 has been produced before us and Mr. P.N. Bhandari has submitted that the Housing Board has been changing its policies and stands in this regard in order to raise funds for the Board as per its exigencies and in that context even for that purpose the mode of payment has been kept flexible. We do find from the letters written by the Housing Board itself to the persons namely Smt. Sudha Goyal and Shri Jerath stating therein that `if you are interested to have the house, you are kindly requested to indicate the size of the house as also deposit the estimated cost of the house through enclosed challan'. In this letter dated 28.3.1979 at the bottom it is mentioned as `enclosure challan', similar is the case with regard to the letter dated 28.3.1979 which was sent to Mr. Jerath. In response to this, such letters dated 28.3.1979 sent to each one of the three persons about whom reference has been made before us by both the sides, we find that while the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 49,000/- at least besides the registration amount of Rs. 10,000/- other two persons namely Sint. Sudha Goyal and Shri Jerath had not deposited any amount whatsoever. Besides this, the application form which was sent for allotment of house after the letter dated 28.3.1979, was also scrutinised by the Assistant, Superintendent and Housing Officer on 10.7.1979. 49,000/- at least besides the registration amount of Rs. 10,000/- other two persons namely Sint. Sudha Goyal and Shri Jerath had not deposited any amount whatsoever. Besides this, the application form which was sent for allotment of house after the letter dated 28.3.1979, was also scrutinised by the Assistant, Superintendent and Housing Officer on 10.7.1979. It shows in the case of Smt. Sudha Goyal that she had applied for the houses of two measurements i.e. 50 x 90 feet and 40 x 90 feet on the basis of outright sale. Shri Jerath was a Doctor in the Rajasthan Government Service. He had applied initially in the MIG Group as per his form of registration dated 14.10.1977 and in that form, he had chosen the mode of payment as hire purchase. He then sent the letter dated 28.5.199 to the Housing Officer of the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur in the matter of change in income group and submitted that now his income had increased to be more than 18,000/- and he wanted to get registered in HIG and therefore, the change of income group be affected in his case immediately. While enclosing the income certificate along with his application dated 28.3.1979, he also sent a copy of the challan with regard to the deposit of Rs. 5,000/- as additional amount for the registration in the HIG, because, earlier, he had deposited only Rs. 5,000/- for Middle Income Group. This amount of Rs. 5,000/- was thus deposited on 28.5.1979 and application form No. 6542 for allotment was sent to the hosing Board in which the mode of payment was mentioned as outright sale. This application for allotment bears date of 25.6.1979. It appears form the record that he also made another application in form No. 8805 dated 25.6.1979 and in this application, he applied for the house of 40 x 90 feet while in the earlier form No. 6542, it was 50 x 90 feet. There is a scrutiny form which shows that the form No. 6542 was scrutinised on 16.7.1991 for a corner plot in HIG by outright sale. 14. There is a scrutiny form which shows that the form No. 6542 was scrutinised on 16.7.1991 for a corner plot in HIG by outright sale. 14. After considering the records as above it becomes very clear that in the application form itself both the alternatives were provided by the Board itself and it was open for the applicant to choose either of the modes for payment whether by way of hire purchase or by way of outright sale and in this regard the Board has been taking varied decisions at different points of time and therefore, in our opinion the argument which has been raised Mr. Shyam Arya that the application had applied on hire purchase basis whereas Smt. Sudha Goyal and Shri Jerath had applied for outright sale is of no consequence and ~;annot make any difference for the purpose of entitlement in the HIG also. It is r also clear that Smt. Sudha Goyal and Shri Jerath had applied for both the plots i e. 50 x 90 feet and 40 x 90 feet which was not permissible as per the terms and norms decided by the Housing Board itself. It is also clear after going through the records that while form of registration with regard to Smt. Sudha Goyal which bears the date of 6.1.1978 i.e. form No. 4061, the category claimed was r-1 and in the form No. 2870 dated Nil, she had applied for both the sizes i.e. 50 x 90 feet and 40 x 90 feet, Shri Jerath, in fact, was registered only in MIG in 1977 and thereafter, in May, 1979 he applied for change of his group from MIG to HIG, deposited the amount of Rs. 5,000/- for completing the registration fee of Rs. 10,000/- and claimed the change. There is no registration as such of Mr. Jerath in the HIG except the scrutiny form of 1979 in which it has been mentioned as HIG, immediately before the lottery. It therefore, stands estab- lished before this Court that as per the norms, the appellant was the only applicant in HIG, who had applied for r-2 i.e. 50 x 90 feet as per the rules and had also deposited a sum of Rs. 49,000/- in addition to a sum of Rs. It therefore, stands estab- lished before this Court that as per the norms, the appellant was the only applicant in HIG, who had applied for r-2 i.e. 50 x 90 feet as per the rules and had also deposited a sum of Rs. 49,000/- in addition to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for registration and so far as two persons who were mixed in that lottery namely Smt. Sudha Goyal and Shri Jerath are concerned, they had applied for more than one categories of plots which was not permissible under the rules and they also did not deposit any amount except the registration charges. Whereas the letter to which we have already made a reference here in above which was sent to Smt. Sudha Goyal clearly required that they must deposit the amount as per the challan which was enclosed with that letter. Mr. Shyam Arya very candidly submitted before us that none of these two persons had deposited that amount. In this view of the matter, we find that they had no entitlement to be included in the lottery and besides this, it was also pointed out at bar that as per the form and the record Smt. Sudha Goyal was only an Insurance Agent, was not a Government Servant and was not entitled to be considered to the allotment of any house in HIG because she was not a Government employee and while her name was included, the form does show that she was an Insurance Agent. Even if, this ground is ignored, it is established that these two persons did not fulfil the requirement for being considered for allotment a house in HIG for two reasons as have already been discussed by us here in above. 15. In the back drop of the facts as stated hereinabove and on the basis of the record, we find that the Allotment Committee in its minutes had rightly recorded that the appellant was the only candidate for HIG for the plot measuring 50 x 90 feet. Mr. 15. In the back drop of the facts as stated hereinabove and on the basis of the record, we find that the Allotment Committee in its minutes had rightly recorded that the appellant was the only candidate for HIG for the plot measuring 50 x 90 feet. Mr. Shyam Arya was at pains to give us these minutes and other records of the Housing Board and wanted to challenge and attack these documents and orders, but it is trite law that no party as a respondent can be allowed to challenge or attack its own orders to actions in the writ petition and therefore, we find that it is a clear case in which the inclusion of these two persons in HIG was wholly unwarranted and was not at all permissible according to the scheme. Once we find that the appellant was the only person who should have been considered for the allotment of plot measuring 50 x 90 feet, the house should have been allotted to her. Now comes the question, with regard to the amount which had already been deposited earlier and the question of interest thereon. This question has already been decided by the learned Single Judge and before us the limited controversy is as to whether the appellant is entitled to the relief with regard to the cost of construction at par with the cost which was taken from Smt. Sudha Goyal, who was allotted the house in place I of the present appellant. By no norms, it can be said that the appellant should be made to suffer the higher cost on account of escalation of price, merely because the Board committed an illegality of including the two persons in the lottery who were not entitled for it and therefore, the ends of justice require that the relief with regard to the cost of construction ought to have been granted in favour of the present appellant while deciding the writ petition. 16. The next contention which has been raised on behalf of the appellant is that the amount of difference is 97,000/- only between the cost of construction which was prevalent and which was recovered from Smt. Sudha Goyal and the cost of construction which has been taken from the present appellant. 16. The next contention which has been raised on behalf of the appellant is that the amount of difference is 97,000/- only between the cost of construction which was prevalent and which was recovered from Smt. Sudha Goyal and the cost of construction which has been taken from the present appellant. Apart from that relief, she is also entitled to interest because this excess amount she had to deposit under compulsion and when the Allotment Committee itself had accepted the case of the appellant that she was the only applicant entitled to be considered for allotment to house of 50 x 90 feet, it should have also decided in favour the appellant with regard to the cost of construction as was changed form Smt. Sudha Goyal. Instead it decided that the actual cost of construction shall be charged form the appellant and she was charged accordingly. This excess amount has to course remained with the Housing Board for the entire period. In the end, further Mr. Shyam Arya on behalf of the Board has taken great pains to place the matter with detailed reference to the records and has submitted that the appellant has not made any prayer in the writ petition with regard to the payment of such interest. As against it, Mr. P.N. Bhandari on behalf of appellant has submitted that it is for the Court to mould the relief in appropriate cases and mere omission to write the word `interest' in the prayer clause should not become a fate accomplish. He has also invited our attention to the clause (iv) of the prayer wherein it has been mentioned that, `any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of your humble petitioner'. It is, of course, true that in clause (ii) of the prayer, there is no specific prayer with regard to the interest, but the appellant is a Government servant as a Lecturer and her excess amount of Rs. 97,000/- had remained with the Housing Board and therefore, we find that on this excess amount, the appellant is certainly entitled to some relief. Whereas the petition was filed in this Court on 16.8.1989 and therefore, we find that the appellant is also entitled to interest at the prevailing rates in the nationalised banks on the amount of Rs. 97,000/- had remained with the Housing Board and therefore, we find that on this excess amount, the appellant is certainly entitled to some relief. Whereas the petition was filed in this Court on 16.8.1989 and therefore, we find that the appellant is also entitled to interest at the prevailing rates in the nationalised banks on the amount of Rs. 97,000/- from 16.8.1989 i.e. the date on which the writ petition was filed.Up shot of the discussion as aforesaid is that the appeal succeeds, order dated 6.7.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's claim regarding cost of construction is hereby set aside and respondent-Board is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 97,000/- to the appellant with interest at the nationalised bank rates prevailing from time to time from the date of filing of the writ petition till the date of the actual refund. The impugned order passed I by the learned Single Judge stands modified accordingly and hence forth the' right and obligation of the parties shall be governed by this order. Parties to bear their own costs.Appeal Allowed. *******