JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present petition has been filed by the original writ petitioner seeking review of the order dated 11.9.2001 (Annexure-2) passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5237 of 2001, whereby the said writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed for the reasons recorded therein. 3. It is admitted case of the parties that M.I.G. House No. 21 situate at Arrah Town in the district of Bhojpur was allotted to the petitioner on 12.11.1983 and possession over the same was given to him on 25.11.1986. Despite passage of about 15 years from the date of coming into possession by the petitioner over the house in question, he could deposit a paltry sum of Rs. 16,640/- only against total tentative allotment price of Rs. 83,200/-, which was in complete violation of the terms and conditions of agreement arrived at between the petitioner at one side and respondent Housing Board at the other side. In that background respondent Hous- ing Board and its officials took steps for realisation of balance principal allotment amount of the house as also the interest amount thereon. 4. Despite all efforts, no further amount was paid by the petitioner on one pretext or the other. Therefore, the steps were taken by the respondent Housing Board and its officials for cancellation of allotment order of M.I.G. House No. 21 made in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent Housing Board, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing aforesaid CWJC No. 5237 of 2001. When the matter was taken up by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 30.7.2001, the petitioner was directed to deposit at least Rs. 1,00,000/- with the respondent Housing Board till 31st August, 2001. Instead of complying the order issued by this Court, the petitioner deliberately violated the direction and deposited Rs. 50,000/- only. Consequently, by the impugned order dated 11.9.2001, learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dismiss the aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner. 5. This review matter was taken up on previous occasion on 6.12.2010 and was heard at length. 50,000/- only. Consequently, by the impugned order dated 11.9.2001, learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dismiss the aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner. 5. This review matter was taken up on previous occasion on 6.12.2010 and was heard at length. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Housing Board and on perusal of the materials placed by the parties, this Court noticed the features of case in details in Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the order dated 6.12.2010, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present case, and are reproduced hereinbelow: "2. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 5237 of 2001 with a prayer to quash letter dated 1.3.2001 (Annexure-3) issued by the Executive Engineer of the respondent-Bihar State Housing Board, Patna, whereby a request was made to the Estate Officer of the Board to take steps for cancellation of allotment of M.I.G. House No. 21 situate at Ara Town due to non-payment of Rs. 3,62,456/- being the amount towards instalment for allotment of such house and the interest thereon. The aforesaid writ petition was heard firstly on 30.7.2001, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) with the Bihar State Housing Board by 31st August, 2001. It was further clarified that if the aforesaid amount is not deposited by the petitioner, then the writ petition itself shall be dismissed. Despite aforesaid direction, the petitioner did not deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. One lac, instead he deposited Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) only. In view of only part compliance of the order dated 30.7.2001, the writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by the impugned order dated 11.9.2001, which is sought to be reviewed in the present review petition. 3. As per own showing of the petitioner, he was allotted the house in question on 12.11.1983 and was given possession of the same on 25.11.1986 and till then he could deposit Rs. 16,640/- only against the total allotment price of Rs. 83,200/-. Balance amount was required to be paid in 120 equal monthly instalments. Admittedly, the petitioner did not deposit any instalment thereafter and remained in occupation of the flat in question. 16,640/- only against the total allotment price of Rs. 83,200/-. Balance amount was required to be paid in 120 equal monthly instalments. Admittedly, the petitioner did not deposit any instalment thereafter and remained in occupation of the flat in question. As per the conditions stipulated in the agreement, interest was required to be added in the principal amount. Despite notices issued by the respondent-Board, balance amount with interest was not paid by the petitioner. Therefore, the aforesaid letter dated 1.3.2001 was issued. 4. It is stated by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, that till date the petitioner has deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs. 16,640/- plus Rs. 50,000/- as per order of this Court and thereafter no further amount at all has been paid by the petitioner, though as per calculation made by the respondent Board, the total amount payable by the petitioner comes to Rs. 4,66,450/- (Rs. Four lacs sixty six thousand and four hundred fifty) as on 31.7.2010. 5. Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has tried to explain the circumstances under which the petitioner could not deposit the balance amount. However, he has fairly submitted that now the petitioner is prepared to deposit the balance amount in instalments within certain reasonable time fixed by this Court." 6. From the perusal of order dated 6.12.2010, it is apparent that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was prepared to deposit the balance amount in installments within certain reasonable time fixed by this Court. On that date also this Court had noted that balance amount payable by the petitioner has been calculated to be Rs. 4,66,450/- as on 31.7.2010. 7. In the light of the aforesaid order, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- and till now he has deposited only Rs. 1,66,440/- in all, right from 1986 to the end of the year 2010 against the total outstanding dues of Rs. 4,66,450/- as on 31.7.2010. 8. When the matter was taken for its final disposal on 3.2.2011 and again today, the Court indicated to the learned counsel for the petitioner that at least Rs. 1,66,440/- in all, right from 1986 to the end of the year 2010 against the total outstanding dues of Rs. 4,66,450/- as on 31.7.2010. 8. When the matter was taken for its final disposal on 3.2.2011 and again today, the Court indicated to the learned counsel for the petitioner that at least Rs. 3 lacs in all including the previous deposits, should be deposited by the petitioner within a time prescribed by this Court and thereafter matter may go back to the respondent Housing Board for fresh calculation of the dues against the petitioner, after giving an opportunity of hearing to him. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the calculations are completely wrong and entire matter should be looked into by this Court itself and claim of the petitioner may be allowed after such examination. He also expressed inability of the petitioner to make any further deposit, unless the fresh calculations are made as per his understanding of the order of the allotment of the house in question, 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Housing Board has brought on record the calculation chart of the outstanding dues against the petitioner regarding allotment of the house in question, made in his favour in the year 1983 itself. Relying on two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma V/s. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others, reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1047, and in the case of M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. V/s. Lt. Governor of Delhi, reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 674, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has failed to point out any grave error or any judicial fallibility in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He rightly submits that the scope of review is different from the scope of appeal, and both cannot be equated on the same footing in the light of long line of cases. The scope of review is very limited one. It is urged that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for review of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Housing Board has highlighted that the approach of the petitioner is very recalcitrant and he has not approached this Court with clean hands. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Housing Board has highlighted that the approach of the petitioner is very recalcitrant and he has not approached this Court with clean hands. The house in question was allotted to him in the year 1983, possession was given to him in the year 1986 and despite opportunity given by this Court neither he is prepared to deposit the money nor he is prepared to go to the authorities of respondent Housing Board for raising his grievance regarding alleged wrong calculation of the interest amount. In the same vein, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to go back from his previous stand, when the order was passed by this Court on 6.12.2010, on which date an undertaking was given that the petitioner shall pay the balance amount as per calculation of the Housing Board in installments. 11. From the materials available on record, this Court further finds that since the petitioner had not deposited the installments fixed by the respondent Housing Board and had not paid outstanding dues, therefore, order of allotment of house in question was cancelled on 29.5.2003, against which the petitioner had approached this Court in CWJC No. 10794 of 2003, which was dismissed by an order dated 20.10.2003 (Annexure-3) with a liberty to get the previous order reviewed passed by a learned Single Judge. 12. In the facts and circumstances set forth above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is interested only in delaying the disposal of the present proceeding and in keeping the matter pending for long time for the reasons best known to him. He is neither prepared to pay outstanding dues of the respondent Housing Board despite undertaking given on 6.12.2010 nor he is prepared to carry out the orders passed by this Court. Obviously such person cannot deserve any compassion by a court of law. 13. For the reasons recorded above, there is no valid ground for reviewing the order dated 11.9.2001 (Annexure-2). Consequently, this review application fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.