Judgment :- 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant u/S 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The result is like a boomerang as we find from the order passed by the learned Single Judge W.P. No 16314/2006 was filed by a hapless person who has been allotted a small site measuring 30 x 45 feet in the year 1994 at a price of Rs.15,496/-, the allottee could not pay the full amount, may be due to his financial difficulties had challenged the order of cancellation of site allotted to him. For such reason the allottee had approached this Court in W.P. No. 16314/2006 in several rounds of writ petitions and the instant writ petition being the latest round. Learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition in terms of the following order. “Both the learned advocates fairly submit that the facts of this case and the facts of writ petition No. 16313/2006 disposed off on 13.12.2007 are one and the same. Therefore, I dispose of this petition in terms of the said writ petition with the following directions: a) The petitioner shall pay the entire balance amount of sital value within six weeks from today; b) The petitioner shall also pay the interest at the rate of 21% p.a. from 11.09.20032 till the date of payment; c) The cost of this litigation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only), shall be deposited by the petitioner with the respondent no. 2 Corporation along with the balance amount of the sital value. No order as to costs.” 2. There is a delay of 254 days in filing the appeal, which is not in any way convincing according to the explanation offered by the appellant. 3. Even on merits we find this appeal a thoroughly meritless and frivolous appeal in as much as the learned Single Judge has only directed the appellant to adhere to terms of its original allotment and nothing more is given. On the other hand we find the interest at the rate of 21% p.a. is mulcted on petitioner to be paid on the balance allotment price with effect from 11.01.2003 till the date of payment, is definitely on the higher side. It is the nature of a penalty. 4. On the other hand we find the interest at the rate of 21% p.a. is mulcted on petitioner to be paid on the balance allotment price with effect from 11.01.2003 till the date of payment, is definitely on the higher side. It is the nature of a penalty. 4. In a democratic socialistic republic where the constitution proclaims all citizens of this country should be provided justice; social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all, fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation, it is the responsibility of a welfare State like this Republic of India to provide all basic needs to the citizens including the requirement of shelter. If a public authority like the Corporation which is also State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, is allotting sites in favour of eligible persons to enable them to construct a house and have a roof over their heads, after collecting a price. While we cannot find fault with the collection of some reasonable amount for allotment of the sites but levy of interest on belated payment at the rate of 21% p.a. is unreasonable. Therefore in this appeal by the Corporation we deem it proper to reduce the rate of interest which the respondent-writ petitioner has to pay on the balance amount from 21% p.a. to 9% p.a. 6. But for this correction the order passed by the learned Single Judge stands. 7. The appeal is dismissed both due to delay and on merits. Consequently Misc. W. No. 60192/2010 is dismissed.