JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta J. (Oral) - Challenge in the present writ petition is to an communication dated 06.02.1992 (Annexure P-19), whereby the allotment of Higher Income Group Category (Partial Self Financing Scheme) Flat No.2583 Ludhiana was cancelled for the reason that the petitioner has not taken possession of the same within the stipulated time. 2. The respondent-Punjab Housing Development Board, Punjab in the year 1986 invited applications for allotment of plots in the HIG category in the city of Ludhiana. The petitioner was one of the applicants of such flats, for which draw of lots was held on 23.01.1987. The petitioner was informed that he is successful in draw of lots vide letter dated 06.02.1987. A letter of allotment was issued to the petitioner on 9.03.1987, informing him to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- within thirty days and another Rs.25,000/- within six months. Subsequently, the petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount within the period prescribed. A regular letter of allotment was issued to the petitioner on 18.03.1988 (Annexure R-2). The letter of allotment Annexure R-2 shows that the petitioner has deposited Rs.60,000/- before the said letter of allotment was issued and the balance amount payable before the possession was Rs.55,704/- to make Rs.1,14,112/- as recoverable amount before possession should be delivered. Admittedly, the petitioner has not deposited the amount after the letter was issued within time prescribed but deposited sum of Rs.55,704/- before January 1990. Since, the petitioner did not deposit the interest on account of delayed payment, the allotment was cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that earlier the petitioner had filed CWP No. 5077 of 1997, claiming possession of the aforesaid flat. In the said writ petition, there was an order of stay regarding the flat allotted to the petitioner. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.09.1993. It is argued that since the aforesaid flat was allotted to respondent No.4 on 13.05.1993 i.e. after the stay was granted by this Court, vide order dated 03.05.1993, therefore, respondent No.4 cannot resist the claim of the petitioner in respect of the said flat. 4. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.09.1993. It is argued that since the aforesaid flat was allotted to respondent No.4 on 13.05.1993 i.e. after the stay was granted by this Court, vide order dated 03.05.1993, therefore, respondent No.4 cannot resist the claim of the petitioner in respect of the said flat. 4. On merits, argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of letter of allotment, the respondents have a right to claim interest for the delayed payment, but could not cancel the allotment as before the cancellation of allotment, the principal amount as claimed in the letter of allotment i.e. Rs.1,14,112/- stood paid. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the argument that the stay granted in the earlier petition will render the action of the allotment of the flat in question to respondent No.4 as illegal. The earlier writ petition was withdrawn on 01.09.1993, consequently, the interim order passed in said writ petition comes to an end. There is nothing on record to show that the said order was served upon the respondents before the allotment of the flat was made in favour of respondent No.4 on 13.05.1993. In view thereof, the allotment of flat to respondent No.4 cannot be said to be in violation of the order passed by this Court. 6. We find merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents can claim interest in terms of the scheme of allotment, for not taking a possession of the flat before the same was cancelled in the year 1992. The petitioner has attached with the writ petition the conditions of allotment as Annexure P-20. Condition No.4(i) contemplates the payment of interest @ 18% per annum for the extension up to 30 days granted beyond the first 30 days and 24% per annum for extension of next 30 days. The said condition reads as under:- “The Housing Commissioner, Punjab, Housing Dev. Condition No.4(i) contemplates the payment of interest @ 18% per annum for the extension up to 30 days granted beyond the first 30 days and 24% per annum for extension of next 30 days. The said condition reads as under:- “The Housing Commissioner, Punjab, Housing Dev. Board (hereinafter called the Housing Commissioner) or any other officer authorised by him may, in appropriate cases, extend the period for taking possession beyond the first 30 days of the date of issue of the letter of allotment on receipt of a written request to this effect from the allottee subject to the following conditions:- “ That the allottee shall have to pay an interest (i) @ 18% P.A. for the extension upto 30 days granted beyond the aforesaid first 30 days (ii) @ 24% P.A. for the extension of next 30 days and (iii) @ 36% P.A. thereafter;” 7. The petitioner has deposited the amount claimed in the letter of allotment though after some delay. This delay gives right to the respondents to claim interest for the period of delay alone. The respondents have not calculated interest or claimed any interest. The allotment was cancelled almost two years after the deposit by the petitioner. Since the condition of allotment contemplates charging of interest, the respondents were duty bound to claim such interest from the petitioner, for any delay in taking possession of the flat. Therefore, the order of cancellation of the flat cannot be sustained. 8. Consequently, while setting aside order dated 06.02.1992 (Annexure P-19), we direct the respondents to calculate the amount of interest payable by the petitioner. On such deposit of the interest, the respondents shall allot an alternate flat in the same scheme and at the same price to the petitioner as to other allottees, but subject to payment of interest in terms of scheme formulated. If the petitioner pays the amount of interest within two months of the receipt of the communication, the possession of a alternate flat shall be handed over to the petitioner. We may notice that in CWP No. 783 of 1993 decided on 5.8.2014, one flat was reserved for the petitioner in the said case, but the writ petition stands dismissed. The said flat shall be available for allotment. 9. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall deposit interest within thirty days of the demand, being raised by the respondents. The said flat shall be available for allotment. 9. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall deposit interest within thirty days of the demand, being raised by the respondents. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————