Judgment S.N.Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board and its authorities. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Bihar State Housing Board communicated vide memo No. 1426 dated 14.3.1997 (Annexure 6), by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected and she was asked to pay additional demand of Rs. 3.10.821.00 with respect to allotment of M.I.G. House No. 172. situated at Lohivanagar, Patna. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under the welfare scheme for middle income group of landless persons lands were acquired and constructions of house were made to be allotted to such persons on the basis of no profit and no loss. He also states that after completing the entire infrastructure and payment of cost of land as well as cost of construction by the Government allotments were made. He further submits that earlier the said house has given to the petitioner on rent and subsequently pursuant to a general policy decision the said house was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1981 and an agreement was executed for payment of the price fixed at Rs. 61.000.00 and odd to be paid in 180 equal instalments. He also avers that thereafter the petitioner came in possession of the said house started residing therein and also paying monthly instalments. 4. Further case of the petitioner is that in the year 1991 the cost of the house was revised to Rs. 95.000.00 + interest from the date of allotment and the petitioner was asked to make the payment, which was objected to by the petitioner by way of filing a representation before the authorities concerned and the same was rejected by the abovementioned impugned order by the Price Fixation Committee (for short the Committee) tuted on the basis of the order of this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that several similar allottees were directed to pay the said enhanced cost and interest out of whom one Ram Sharan Prasad Singh filed a writ application bearing C.W.J.C.No. 5106 of 1991. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that several similar allottees were directed to pay the said enhanced cost and interest out of whom one Ram Sharan Prasad Singh filed a writ application bearing C.W.J.C.No. 5106 of 1991. which was disposed of on 8.7.1992 holding that the Housing Board cannot now raise any demand on the basis of the alleged fact that the real price of the house in question was much higher and it was also held that the demand made was arbitrary and the same was quashed. The said order was challenged by the Housing Board in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 13243 of 1992. which was dismissed with liberty to the Board to file a petition for review before the High Court Whereafter the Board filed Civil Review No. 159 of 1992 and the said review was also dismissed by this Court on 27.9.1993. Hence, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was absolutely no occasion for the Board or its authority to enhance the said cost/price. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-Board vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as an alternative remedy of arbitration is available on the basis of Clause 20 of the Agreement (Annexure 3). He further submits that in the year 1995 various writ petitions were filed in similar circumstance with common questions and the Division Bench of this Court found difficulty to decide such questions of facts and directed the authorities to constitute a Tribunal/forum to decide the said disputes. He also avers that the said order of this Court was affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court also. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Board also relies upon a decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case Bihar State Electricity Board V/s. Usha Martin Industries reported in - in which it was decided that the fixation of price with respect to electricity supplied was a policy matter of the authorities and in such matters of the policy decision the High Court should not interfere. He also avers that a Division Bench of this Court passed an order dated 19.8.1992 (Annexure A to the ccounter affidavit) in C.W.J.C. No. 941 of 1992 (Rajmohan Prasad Singh V/s. State of Bihar) and held that the Board charges interest not to earn any profit, but in order to meet its own financial obligation. It was also held therein that nothing was brought to the notice of the Court to render invalid the interest charged by the Board. In such circumstances. Learned Counsel for the Board submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed. 8. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent-Board, it is quite apparent that the house in question was allotted by te authorities to the petitioner in the year 1981 and much before that all the infrastructures were complete and the cost of land and the cost of construction were already paid by the Government to the persons concerned and hence such financial liabilities incurred over the land acquisition as well as its development and construction are recoverable from its beneficiaries as the house was allotted on "no profit no loss" basis as per Government policy. Furthermore, in terms of Clause (3) of the letter of allotment and Clause (A) of the agreement the allottee is liable to pay the increased cost/price due to increase in expenditure on construction, land acquisition and its development or due to final valuation of the unit. In the instant case, there is no question of any increase in the cost of acquisition of land or increase in cost of construction as it has already been made much before the allotment to the petitioner and on that basis calculations were already made. Hence, in the said circumstance, there was no occasion for the authorities concerned to again revise the said cost and direct the petitioner to pay further amounts with interest on the enhanced amount from the date of allotment. 9. Although the respondent-authorities have claimed that there was an error in calculating the price, but the same had been detected in December, 1980. 9. Although the respondent-authorities have claimed that there was an error in calculating the price, but the same had been detected in December, 1980. which was before the execution of the agreement and in any view of the matter no material has been produced to show that the Housing Board ever communicated about any such alleged mistake to the petitioner and hence it is difficult to accept the claim of the Board. It is also not disputed that several houses of the same type at the same place were allotted to different other persons on the price of Rs. 60,000.00 and odd but their cost has not been enhanced. 10. So far as the question of maintainability of the writ petition due to the alternative remedy of arbitration mentioned in Clause 20 of the agreement is concerned, several similar writ petitions have already been entertained by this Court and in the present circumstances, when on the directions of this Court, the Committee was constituted, which has decided the matter. I do not see any reason to reject this writ petition on the question of maintainability. 11. Furthermore the case law relied upon by learned Counsel for the respondents in the case of Usha Martin Industries (supra), is concerned, no doubt the price fixation of electricity supply is a policy matter of the State and the High Court should not interfere in such matters. But in the instant case, policy decision has already been taken by the authorities concerned that the allotment in this case will be made on the basis of no profit and no loss and the cost of land and of construction having already been paid on the basis of which the price was fixed by the concerned authorities, the decision in the said case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. Considering the entire matter, it is held that the respondent-Board was not justified in raising the demand and fixing interest thereon and hence the said demand and the impugned order are arbitrary and perverse and are accordingly, quashed. 13. 12. Considering the entire matter, it is held that the respondent-Board was not justified in raising the demand and fixing interest thereon and hence the said demand and the impugned order are arbitrary and perverse and are accordingly, quashed. 13. However, it has been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that she has already paid the entire amount of instalments including the interest as per the direction of the authorities concerned and no amount including interest is due on the basis of the price of the premises and the rate of interest fixed at the time of allotment. Hence, respondent-Board is hereby directed to execute the lease in favour of the petitioner for a period of 90 years with respect to M.I.G. House No. 172 as contemplated in Clause (5) of the agreement. However, it has to be made clear that if the Housing Board makes any re-calculation, it has to be done on the basis of the principal price fixed at Rs. 61.856.00 only and if any amount of the said principal amount or any interest thereof is due as per allotment, the Housing Board may insist upon the petitioner to pay the said amount only. It is further directed that let this order be complied with within three months from the date of receipt-production of a copy of thereof. 14. This writ application is accordingly, allowed.