Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that he was allotted a plot and a house bearing No.MIG 62, in Jothi Nagar, Arakonam, by the second respondent, by an order, dated 17.4.1985. The said allotment had been confirmed by a letter, dated 30.12.1985, wherein, a sum of Rs.32,000/- had been demanded, as the price for the house, for outright purchase. The petitioner had paid the entire amount, as on 24.9.1986, with the loan that had been obtained from the Government of Tamil Nadu, as per G.O.Ms.No.1666, dated 16.12.1986, and G.O.Ms.No.174, dated 7.2.1991, issued by the Housing and Urban Development Department. 3. The petitioner has further stated that he had filed a writ petition, before this Court, in W.P.No.46128 of 2002, challenging the demand made by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. This Court, by an order, dated 20.4.2005, had quashed the demand of Rs.99,739/-, made by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, as it had been done, without furnishing the necessary particulars. However, liberty had been granted to the respondent Board to send a proper notice to the petitioner, containing all the necessary particulars, as to how the total amount, claimed by the Board had been arrived at. It had also been stated that if the petitioner was not satisfied with the accounts or the particulars furnished by the respondent Board, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court. The present writ petition has been filed stating that the second respondent, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had issued the impugned order, contrary to the observations made by this Court, in its order, dated 20.4.2005, made in W.P.No.46128 of 2002, and without jurisdiction. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first and the second respondents denying the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It has been stated that a regular allotment order had been issued to the petitioner, on 30.12.1985, stating that the selling cost of the house was Rs.32,000/-, including the tentative land cost. In the said order, it had been stated that the final price would be determined only after all the pending suits are disposed of. It has been stated that a regular allotment order had been issued to the petitioner, on 30.12.1985, stating that the selling cost of the house was Rs.32,000/-, including the tentative land cost. In the said order, it had been stated that the final price would be determined only after all the pending suits are disposed of. The petitioner had executed the lease cum sale agreement, on 9.9.1987, and the petitioner is bound by the Rules and the Regulations of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the conditions of allotment. As per the directions issued by this Court, in its order, dated 20.4.2005, made in W.P.No46128 of 2002, the balance cost of Rs.1,21,700/-, has been intimated to the petitioner, on 13.7.2005. 5. It has also been stated that the writ petition is not maintainable since, it may not be open to this Court to enforce the contractual obligations arising out of an agreement, between the petitioner and the respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Further, certain cases relating to the housing scheme under which the petitioner had got the allotment, are pending on the file of the Sub Court, Arakonam. In such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 13.7.2005, before this Court, by way of a writ petition, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 13.7.2005, before this Court, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court had already passed an order, dated 20.4.2005, in W.P.No.46128 of 2002, making it clear that the petitioner should approach the appropriate Civil Court to challenge the demand made by the respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in respect of the allotment made in his favour, under the Arakonam Mini Neighbourhood Scheme. 7. Further, this Court does not interfere in the enforcement of contractual obligations between the parties to the agreement. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the terms and conditions of the allotment made in his favour, it is open to him to challenge the same before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. 7. Further, this Court does not interfere in the enforcement of contractual obligations between the parties to the agreement. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the terms and conditions of the allotment made in his favour, it is open to him to challenge the same before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. According to the respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the petitioner had agreed to the payment of the final cost, as determined by the Board, after all the cases relating to the land acquisition proceedings are disposed of. If such a claim is true, then it would be open to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to determine the final cost liable to be paid by the petitioner, for the allotment made in his favour. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is unsustainable in the eye of law and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected writ petition miscellaneous petition is closed.