Judgment 1. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The order impugned is dated 28.8.2003 on C.W.J.C. No. 2186 of 1999 (Sri Amrendra Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and others). 3. The Court has heard learned counsel for the respondents-appellants and has perused the record of the writ petition and that of the Letters Patent Appeal. 4. The order on the writ petition is based on the record. The Bihar State Housing Board (in short, the Board) committed a manifest error apparent on the face of the record when an allotment of a plot was made for residential-cum-commercial purposes. Thereafter, the allottee was asked to sign a lease deed only for residential purpose. The learned Judge records that "The Board intimated the petitioner that lease deed shall be executed for residential purpose only." The Board could not resolve this issue at its end. Learned Judge also records that the "petitioner agitated the matter. However, it could not be solved." 5. From this it is clear that the Board was not prepared to take a stand consistent on record that the allotment was residential-cum-commercial. In this regard it needs to be mentioned that paragraph-7 of the lease deed which the petitioner was required to sign in no uncertain terms mentions "that the allotted plot of land shall be exclusively used for residential purpose and for no other use." The allotment was made, the record shows for residential and commercial purpose. Thus, the stand of the Board is unjust and contradictory. 6. The petitioner-respondent who filed the writ petition did not desire any further issue with the Board. The latter seem to be changing its stands instead. Rightly, the petitioner sought refund of the money. The learned Judge has certified the contradiction in the case of the Board and has directed that the petitioner is entitled to refund with interest. 7. The Court does not find any error in the order of the learned Judge. 8. Dismissed.