Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2526 (PAT)

Anupama Saha v. State Of Bihar

2011-12-20

RAVI RANJAN

body2011
Order I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State of Bihar as well respondent nos. 2 to 4. 2. The writ petitioner seeks quashing of the communication issued vide letter no. 665/Aa dated 26.06.2004, as contained in Annexure 9, sent by the respondent no. 3, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit additional amount of Rs. 3,28,613/- along with administrative cost of Rs. 66,745/- for exchange of Flat No. 35FA 4/4 at 2nd Floor in place of earlier allotted Flat No. 35FA 5/23, which is at 4th floor. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that Rs. 1,05,000/- has already been paid to the Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Board”) as per demand by way of last instalment and the total amount paid by the petitioner including the aforesaid amounts to Rs. 3,56,000/- the respondent-Board, upon receipt of aforesaid amount had already issued letter of delivery of possession in favour of the petitioner. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that by a letter dated 27.05.2004, which stands appended as Annexure 7, the petitioner, in view of her health problem and the fact that the elder members are also there in her family, had requested the respondent no. 2 to consider for allotment of Flat No. 3 S.F.A. 4/4, Secctor-3, Bahadurpur, Patna-20, that was vacant at that point of time and was of identical construction, however, on the 2nd floor, in exchange of her earlier allotted Flat No. 35FA 5/23, which was at the 4th floor. However, the petitioner was intimated vide Annexure 8 that she will have to pay Rs. 4,18,430/- by way of cost of the flat and in addition thereto Rs. 66,745/- was to be paid as administrative cost. Subsequently, vide Annexure 9, which is a letter dated 26.06.2004, she had been intimated that the total amount to be paid by the petitioner would be Rs. 3,28,613/- along with the administrative cost of Rs. 66,745/-. The petitioner, thus, seeks a direction that in view of the fact that the total amount had already been paid, direction be issued to the respondents to allow the exchange of the flat on the amount already paid by the petitioner. 4. 3,28,613/- along with the administrative cost of Rs. 66,745/-. The petitioner, thus, seeks a direction that in view of the fact that the total amount had already been paid, direction be issued to the respondents to allow the exchange of the flat on the amount already paid by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board, on the other hand, submitted that the exchange amount after calculating fair price was demanded from the petitioner, however, the petitioner had already written a letter dated 11.08.2004, (Annexure 10) stating that, if it is not possible to exchange the flat on earlier paid price along with the administrate cost of Rs.66,745/-, then she would be not willing for exchange. Therefore, a request was made to refund her entire amount with interest. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board submitted that the possession of flat allotted to the petitioner had already been directed to be given to her but she herself was not ready to accept that flat and demanded exchange. However, since she was not willing to deposit the additional amount which has been legally directed to be deposited by the respondent-Board, as per her desire, the Board has issued necessary direction to refund the amount after deducting 20% of the amount as per concerned Regulation. 6. At the time of hearing, a copy of the order dated 01.07.2011 contained in memo no. 5374 dated 01.07.2011 had been produced before the Court by both the sides to show that in view of the total amount paid by Rs. 2,84,800/- was paid in favour of the petitioner through cheque no. 005581 of the Bank of India, Patna Branch, issued in her favour after deducting 20% from the total of Rs. 3,56,800/-. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that and fairly submits that the petitioner has already received the aforesaid amount. However, it is urged that the petitioner had communicated her request of refund vide Annexure 10 as back as on 12.08.2004 itself to the respondents but, in place of taking a decision immediately, it took them about 7 years to take such decision. Finally they have refunded the amount, after deduction of 20% amount out of the total deposit after much delay. Finally they have refunded the amount, after deduction of 20% amount out of the total deposit after much delay. Thus, it is contended that in view of the fact that there has been lapse on behalf of the respondent-Board, the petitioner should be held to be entitled for interest upon the refunded amount. 8. I find force in the aforesaid submission raised on behalf of the petitioner. 9. The petitioner had requested for exchange of the flat vide Annexure 7 on 27.05.2004 and, thereafter, vide Annexure 8 dated 19.06.2004 and Annexure 9 dated 26.06.2004 the respondent-Board had intimated the petitioner that she will have to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 3,28,613/- and, in addition, a further amount of Rs. 66,745/- as administrative cost. Since the petitioner was not in a position to pay the additional amount, by letter dated 11.08.2004 that has been received by the respondent-Board on 12-08.2004 (Annexure 10), she had already disclosed her willingness either for exchange of flat on earlier paid price along with administrative charge or for refund of her amount with interest. The respondent-Board could well have taken a decision, which now has been taken by it, immediately thereafter. However, since no decision was taken earlier, the petitioner was compelled to file this writ application. Now a decision has been taken on 01.07.2011 by the respondent-Board to refund the amount after deducting 20% of amount as per the concerned regulation and admittedly refund has been made. Thus, in my considered opinion, since the petitioner, who was entitled for the refund immediately after 12.08.2004 has been paid back the amount concerned after a delay of about seven years without any rhyme and reason, would be entitled for interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of receipt of Annexure 10, i.e., 12.08.2004, till the date of payment of the refund amount to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed with a direction to the respondents to calculate the interest and pay the calculated amount to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.