ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Respondents-Jharkhand State Housing Board. 2. The petitioner had come before this Court in 2007 for directing the respondents to deliver possession of House No. 122/2-1 at Adityapur in terms of letter under Memo no. 1925 dated 23rd December, 1985, which was issued pursuant to the decision of the Board dated 1st October, 1985 (Annexure-2). 3. The contention of the petitioner is that he being an employee of Zenith Forge Limited made an application for allotment of the said Quarter no. 122/2-1 as per Annexure-1 on 10th September, 1985. It is further submitted that the Board of Directors took a decision for allotment of the said house in favour of the petitioner on rent-cum-purchase basis on deposit of Rs. 4,779.32 as rent till December, 1985. The aforesaid decision was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 23rd December, 1995 (Annexure-2). Again vide Annexure-3 dated 2nd January, 1986, the petitioner was informed about the allotment of the said house by the Executive Engineer of the Bihar State Housing Board, Divisional Office at Jamshedpur, in anticipation of vacation of the house. According to the petitioner vide Annexure-4 series he deposited the rent from January, 1986 to June, 1986 in addition to a sum of Rs. 4,479.32 as arrear rent upto December, 1985. Thereafter there has been hiatus of 22 years. Vide Annexure-5 dated 20th March, 2007 one Sri S. N. Sinha claiming to be the power of attorney holder of the petitioner made query from the Public Information Officer of the respondent no. 1-Board about the reason for non-availability of the house in question, which was allotted vide order dated 23rd December, 1985. The petitioner has thereafter approached this Court with the reliefs as indicated hereinabove. 4. However, strangely, the petitioner has chosen not to swear affidavit on his own but is being represented by the power of attorney holder, Mr. Sachchidanand Sinha. During the pendency of the writ application one Rajni Kant Pandey has been impleaded as respondent no. 4 by order dated 10th October, 2009 on the Interlocutory Application of the petitioner, as the house in question has been allotted to the said person. 5. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. Sachchidanand Sinha. During the pendency of the writ application one Rajni Kant Pandey has been impleaded as respondent no. 4 by order dated 10th October, 2009 on the Interlocutory Application of the petitioner, as the house in question has been allotted to the said person. 5. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. According to the learned counsel for the respondents serious objection is made to the representation of the petitioner through the said power of attorney holder Sri Sachchidanand Sinha on the ground that the said person has been in habit of representing other allottee of the Board in the capacity of power of attorney holder. Examples have been given in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit stating that in W.P. (C) No. 376/2004 and in connected L.P.A. No. 612/2006 he is representing Dr. Brajendra Prasad Verma the allottee of House no. M/83 (old) Adityapur. It is further submitted that he himself is residing in House no. HIG-226 in New Housing Colony, Adityapur and it has come to the notice of the Respondents-Board that he is occupying H.I.G Houses of the Board being Nos. 226 & 227 and has constructed a house after joining both the plots in the capacity of power of attorney holder of the respective allottees. It is their contention that the said person had been indulging in illegal transaction of the houses of the Board in league with the allottees. Learned counsel for the Respondents-Board also submitted that one Sri Rajni Kant Pandey was an employee of Jamshedpur Consumer Co-operative Stores in whose name the house was previously allotted in the year 1976 when the said store was closed in the year 1982. Against the said person, respondent no.4 who was earlier in possession of the said house, eviction proceeding were initiated. In the meantime, the Board took a decision to allot the said house to M/s. Zenith Forgings Limited, Adityapur Industrial Area, Jamshedpur on rental basis, which would appear from the letter dated 2nd January, 1986 under ‘Integrated Subsidized Industrial Housing Scheme’ in vogue under the Board at the relevant point of time on rental basis. It is further submitted that the petitioner being an employee of the said company,the said house was allotted to the petitioner on rental basis on a monthly rent of Rs. 29.15 as would also appear from the said letter. It is further submitted that the petitioner being an employee of the said company,the said house was allotted to the petitioner on rental basis on a monthly rent of Rs. 29.15 as would also appear from the said letter. The said letter was issued in anticipation of the vacation of the house from the possession of the respondent no. 4. 6. It is further submitted that pursuant to subsequent decision taken in the year 1993-95 by the Board, which are contained at Annexure-C, the Board took a decision to dispose of all those houses which were available for allotment under the Industrial Housing Scheme. Under such circumstances, the House no. 122/2-1 situated in Adityapur, presently in question, was allotted to the respondent no. 4 vide Allotment Letter dated 7th March, 1996 by the Executive Engineer under the signature of Executive Engineer of the Bihar State Housing Board, Jamshedpur. The said allotment letter is annexed as Annexure-C. Thereafter the Hire Purchase Agreement was entered on 5th March, 2001 with Shri Rajnikant Pandey and the agreement was registered on 26th March, 2001 on his fulfilling the terms and conditions of the allotment (Annexure-E). 7. Learned counsel for the Respondents-Board also submits that the petitioner had already a house/flat being Flat no. E1/1 at Nagar Court Complex, Kadma and according to the provisions of the Housing Board Act, any person having residential accommodation within a radius of 8 kilometer is not entitled for allotment of house/flat/land of the Housing Board which is intended to provide home to homeless. Learned counsel for the Respondents-Board further submits that the petitioner himself has lodged a Criminal Complaint case being C1 Case No. 105/08 against the Managing Director, Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer under different provisions of the Indian Penal Code before the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saraikella making criminal charges that the said house no. 122/2/1 was not allotted to the petitioner despite promise and payments have been made in lieu thereof in the year 1986. However, it is submitted that the accused persons have no dishonest intention and they were even not posted at the relevant place and have resorted to proceedings before the Higher Forum for quashing of the said complaint. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondents-Board, therefore, submits that in the wake of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner was never allotted the house in question on purchase basis. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondents-Board, therefore, submits that in the wake of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner was never allotted the house in question on purchase basis. The house was allotted to its employer. The Industrial Housing Scheme has itself been abolished and the houses have been put on sale. It is further submitted that after 1985-86 after 21 years a person acting as his power of attorney holder has made an application for seeking certain information under R.T.I on 20th March, 2007 (Annexure-5) which shows that the petitioner was never serious about the said house in question for allotment on Hire Purchase basis. It is further submitted that the writ application is otherwise also grossly delayed and barred by delay and laches. The petitioner, on the other hand, through rejoinder has submitted a vague reply relating to the allegation that the house in Jamshedpur is in the name of the petitioner that it is being jointly held. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the materials on record. From perusal of Annexure-2, it appears that the House no. 122/2-1 in Adityapur was allotted under an Industrial Housing Scheme to M/s. Zenith Forge Limited, Adityapur Industrial Area on rental basis. It further appears that the said housing colony was abolished in due course of time. The petitioner seems to have deposited certain rent of the said house in the year 1986, but remained totally silent till the filing of the writ application in the year 2007 when an application was also made under R.T.I through the said person Mr. Sachchidanand Sinha. This court fails to appreciate as to why a person interested for a house on lease and a home being at a place Jamshedpur, would choose not to prosecute a case through affidavit on his own behalf rather through a power of attorney holder regarding whose credential statements have been made in the counter affidavit by the respondents. 10. This court fails to appreciate as to why a person interested for a house on lease and a home being at a place Jamshedpur, would choose not to prosecute a case through affidavit on his own behalf rather through a power of attorney holder regarding whose credential statements have been made in the counter affidavit by the respondents. 10. From the facts narrated during the submission of the parties and also brought on record, it appears that by a conscious policy decision of the Board the house itself has been allotted in the year 1996 to one Rajnikant Pandey who entered into Hire Purchase Agreement in the year 2001 in respect of whom the final registered deed has been executed in the year 2011, which the petitioner is now seeking to impugn by way of Interlocutory Application. The said respondent no. 4 had earlier been noticed but has chosen not to appear after valid service of notice. However, it appears that the petitioner himself has failed to make out any legal claim for issuance of a writ or direction upon the respondent no. 4 for quashing of allotment of the house in question in the facts and circumstances, discussed hereinabove. 11. In the background of the discussion made hereinabove this court does not find any reason to interfere in the allotment of the said house to the respondent no. 4 in the year 1996 for which Hire Purchase Agreement was executed in the year 2001 and final deed has been executed in the year 2011 when the petitioner himself never approached for redressal of his grievances till the filing of the writ petition in the year 2007 after 1986. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I ,therefore, do not find any merit in the writ application and it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently I. A. No. 2973 of 2011 stands disposed of.