ORAL ORDER This is yet another reflection of arbitrariness, which has been practiced by the officials of the Housing Board. The facts speaks for themselves. A retired lowly paid government servant, who got allured by the offer made by the Housing Board for low cost housing and opted for allotment of a plot of land under the MIG Scheme. The application form no. 47346 was filled and filed and a sum of Rs. 3,500/- was duly deposited vide Money Receipt No. 25, dated 02.04.1994, which was said to be 10 per cent of the estimated cost of land. 2. Petitioner was hoping for an early allotment and decision on his application, but nothing of the kind came to be done for a long period of time. Sometime in the year 2000 he got a communication from the Housing Board, saying that the affidavit, which was filed by the petitioner, did not indicate the place “Chapra”. His application could not be considered in the draw of lots held in the year 1996 due to above. When the petitioner filed the Writ Application, the authorities, subsequently, on the basis of a fresh affidavit considered his case for allotment which also took almost six years to crystallize, because the plot of land has been offered to the petitioner in terms of Annexure- C to the counter affidavit, in terms of a decision taken by the Board on 24.01.2006. Now a demand of Rs. 3,23,444/- has been made as the estimated price for the land, which the petitioner is required to pay. 3. The stand of the respondent in the counter affidavit was that the fault lay with the petitioner, because of improper filing of affidavit and declaration and, therefore, petitioner could not be given the plot of land, when the draw of lots was held. 4. Obviously, the averment or the statements so made did not satisfy the Court, when the matter was heard earlier and a direction was issued upon the counsel representing the Housing Board to produce the entire original files with regard to the petitioner. 4. Obviously, the averment or the statements so made did not satisfy the Court, when the matter was heard earlier and a direction was issued upon the counsel representing the Housing Board to produce the entire original files with regard to the petitioner. The files have been produced, the records have been examined, the reason given by the Housing Board earlier for non-inclusion of the petitioner’s application in the draw of lots seems to be a contrived kind of reason, fully tainted with mala-fide and mischief, which denied the petitioner the benefit of the allotment when it was required to be made and considered. No doubt, the respondents have now made allotment because they are hardly any takers as is evident from the reading of the communication of the Managing Director of the Board brought as Annexure- D to the counter affidavit, which is dated 08.06.2005. 5. An innocent citizen cannot be harassed at the hands of the dishonest officials of the Housing Board, because the ground so taken for non-inclusion of the petitioner’s claims is not a cogent, valid or legal kind and obviously impediments were created on illusory ground when no fault lay with the petitioner. The Housing Board was bound to consider the application of the petitioner in entirety and the declaration made therein. Even if for the sake of argument the word “Chapra” may have been missing in the affidavit so filed that does not in any way could mislead the Housing Board to consider his claim because the application very clearly indicates as to what land or the plot the petitioner was interested in. 6. Petitioner, therefore, cannot suffer at the hands of the respondents Housing Board. The allotment which has been made to the petitioner in terms of Annexure- C will be subject to the cost revision, which was fixed initially in the year 1994 and the final price which the Cost Committee may fix in this regard on the basis of 1994 application and the price prevalent. 7. Annexure- C, the allotment letter with regard to the demand, made on the petitioner on the new price, therefore, stands quashed or modified. 8. The Writ Application is disposed off with a direction upon the Managing Director that he will rework the pricing of the allotted plot in favour of the petitioner taking the above facts and raise a demand accordingly. 8. The Writ Application is disposed off with a direction upon the Managing Director that he will rework the pricing of the allotted plot in favour of the petitioner taking the above facts and raise a demand accordingly. This may be done within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this Order. The original records are returned to the counsel appearing for the Housing Board. It is left open to the Managing Director to fix responsibility on the person, who had created such an embarrassment to the Board, if he is still in service or else the Housing Board will have to rue its fate. Writ Application is allowed with the above observation/direction. 9. The revised claim so raised and made will be finally settled by the petitioner, if he is interested in possessing and continuing with the land or else the Housing Board is not powerless in this regard if the petitioner is or will be negligent in making payments.