JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. These analogous writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Petitioners claim that they being office bearers of Janta Row House Sangharsh Samittee, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, have filed these writ petitions in representative capacity. Accordingly, reference to the petitioners hereinafter will mean all such persons, whose case is similar to the petitioners. 3. Petitioners contention is that at the time of issuing allotment letters in 1995, the respondent-Housing Board could not ask them to pay higher price of house, than the price which was prevailing at the time of deposit of earnest money by them in 1989. The houses were ready but allotment letters were issued to the petitioners after about six years i.e. in 1995. The Housing Board admitted in the counter affidavit that it could not organize lottery till 1995 as several antisocial elements who were in unauthorized occupation since 1983, were creating hindrance. Housing Board entered into agreements with other allottees in 1989 at lower prices. Thus it is contended that the petitioners cannot be penalized for the delay caused by the Housing Board. 4. The stand of the Housing Board is that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Their conduct is mischievous and mala fide. They trespassed in the houses in 1989. Thereafter they started creating all sorts of obstruction in holding lottery for the purpose of allotment, insisting to allot them the houses in which they had trespassed. They also delayed execution of agreement to avoid further payments. Their aim was/is to continue with the occupation of the houses only on payment of earnest money of Rs. 2500-3000/-. They went to the extent of challenging the process of allotment by lottery, by filing CWJC No. 233 of 1994 (R) under the name of Priyadarshini Jan Kalyan Sangharsh Samiti, Janta Row House, Adityapur, Jamshedpur and insisted that they should be allotted houses which they were occupying. This writ petition was dismissed on 25.1.1994 by passing the following order. Heard Mr. B.P. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by notice issued vide Annexure 8 to this writ application directing holding of lottery for allotment of certain types of flats. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the flats in question. Heard Mr. B.P. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by notice issued vide Annexure 8 to this writ application directing holding of lottery for allotment of certain types of flats. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the flats in question. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to show even prima facie their occupation is authorized. In view of their unauthorized occupation, we are not passing any positive order. This application is dismissed. 5. The question is whether the Housing Board was responsible for the delay in issuing allotment letters to the petitioners or the petitioners were responsible for such delay. 6. From the materials on the record, it is clear that petitioners themselves were responsible for the delay in allotment of the houses. The letter dated 20.1.1994, sent by the said Priyadarshini Jan Kalyan San gharsh Samiti (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 2347 of 1996), goes to show that the petitioners trespassed into the houses in 1989 just after paying the earnest money. Then they caused hindrances in the allotment process, repeatedly. The aforesaid CWJC No. 233 of 1994 (R) was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation of the houses. Unauthorized occupation of the houses by some other persons may also be one of the causes of delay, but it is clear that due to the obstructions created by the petitioners also, under one or other banner, the allotment could not be made prior to 1995. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners were responsible at all for the delay in issuance of allotment letter. 7. Moreover, the petitioners contention that agreements were entered into by Housing Board with other allottees in 1989 at lower prices is wholly untenable. From the agreements and the letter Annexure 4/B (to both the writ petitions) it becomes admitted position that pursuant to the advertisement made between 1978-1980, some persons were allotted houses in 1983 and, pursuant thereto, the agreements in question were entered into with them in 1987/1989. Thus petitioners cannot equate themselves with such allottees. 8. It cannot be held that the Board is not justified in asking the price of the houses prevailing when the allotment letters were issued to the petitioners in the year 1995. Thus petitioners cannot equate themselves with such allottees. 8. It cannot be held that the Board is not justified in asking the price of the houses prevailing when the allotment letters were issued to the petitioners in the year 1995. The prices were fixed on the basis of various factors. The petitioners contention that they are liable to pay the price of the House prevailing in 1989, when they deposited the earnest money, cannot be accepted, as they are also responsible for causing delay of about six years. Their conduct is mischievous and unfair. They do not deserve interference under the writ jurisdiction. 9. The judgments relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioners, are of no help to them. In the case of Citizens Cause, Ranchi v. Bihar State Housing Board (1992) 1 BLJR 367 , the Board did not deny the averment of the petitioner therein that the delay in allotment was because of the laches on the part of the Housing Board. In the case of Umesh Pandey v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1996 (2) PLJR 244 , it was found that the Board was at fault. But in this case the delay in allotment was due to the obstructions created by the petitioners. In the case of Nagendra Prasad Singh v. Bihar State Housing Board 2001 (3) Jhr CR 499 (Jhr), the question was different i.e. whether the Board could deny allotment of flat to the petitioner therein, on the basis of the letter issued by the Government rescinding the provisions of Section 10(2)(chh) of the Bihar State Housing-Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estate) Regulation, 1983. 10. The case of Delhi Development Authority v. Puspendra Kumar Jain , relied on by learned Counsels for the Board, is relevant in this case, in which it was held as follows: No provision of law also could be brought to our notice in support of the proposition that mere drawn of lots vests an indefeasible right in the allottee for allotment at the price obtaining on the date of drawl of lots. In our opinion, since the right to flat arises only on the communication of the letter of allotment, the price or rates prevailing on the date of such communication is applicable, unless otherwise provided in the Scheme. In our opinion, since the right to flat arises only on the communication of the letter of allotment, the price or rates prevailing on the date of such communication is applicable, unless otherwise provided in the Scheme. If in case the respondent is not willing to take or accept the allotment at such rate, it is always open to him to decline the allotment. We see no unfairness in the above procedure. 11. In the result, there being no merit, the writ petitions are dismissed. However, I am not imposing cost on the petitioners.