ORDER 1. Challenging the demand notice dated 01.07.2013 whereby the price of the house bearing no. MIG7 to the petitioner was enhanced from Rs. 15,60,401 to Rs. 22,36,289, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are stated thus: On 29.04.2010 in a draw of lottery the petitioner was allotted House No. MIG7 and a allotment letter dated 20.08.2010 was issued requiring the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,22,520 on or before 30.09.2010. The tentative cost of the house was assessed at Rs. 15,60,401. Vide letter dated 04.06.2010, the Assistant Engineer informed the Executive Engineer that the house allotted to the petitioner was given on lease by Arjun Prasad to another person. On a representation of the petitioner for allotment of another house of similar description because the house allotted to the petitioner i.e., MIG7 was occupied by another person, the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 12.02.2011 directed the petitioner to deposit the amount mentioned in the allotment letter within 15 days. Again, vide letter dated 05.09.2012, the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 3,22,520 and the petitioner deposited the said amount on 12.06.2013 however, vide letter dated 01.07.2013, the total cost of the house was enhanced to Rs. 22,36,289 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Jharkhand State Housing Board stating that since the petitioner failed to act in compliance of the allotment letter dated 20.08.2010 whereby she was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,22,520 on or before 30.09.2010, the Board has levied penal interest on the said amount. It is stated that an amount of Rs. 3,22,520 has been deposited by the petitioner only on 12.06.2013 and the petitioner has been directed vide letter dated 01.07.2013 to execute the agreement. Instead of executing the agreement the petitioner has rushed to this Court. Since the dispute relates to the terms of the agreement and it involves disputed questions of fact, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Mr. Instead of executing the agreement the petitioner has rushed to this Court. Since the dispute relates to the terms of the agreement and it involves disputed questions of fact, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since possession of the House No. MIG7 was not handed over to the petitioner, the respondent Housing Board is not justified in charging penal rent and thus, enhancing the total cost of the house to Rs. 22,36,289. It is submitted that the House No. MIG7 was occupied illegally by another person and this fact has been admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed by them. It appears from the record of the case that vide letter dated 06.07.2013, one Pramod Kumar Singh has been directed to vacate the house in question and thus, it is apparent that the property which was allotted to the petitioner still is under illegal occupation. In these facts, letter dated 01.07.2013 has been assailed by the petitioner. 6. Per contra, Mr. Rishi Pallava, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Housing Board has submitted that an allottee is bound by the terms of the allotment letter. Clause3 of the allotment letter clearly indicates that the price indicated in the allotment letter is only tentative and it can be enhanced under various circumstances. The learned counsel has further relied on Clause 5 and 7 and submitted that in terms of the allotment letter dated 20.08.2010, if an allottee fails to deposit the amount demanded by the Housing Board, the allottee is liable to pay penal interest. 7. It is well settled that the courts would not interfere in the pricing policy. What should be the cost or the price and the terms of the allotment imposing interest on defaulted amount cannot be interfered with by the Courts unless, the terms are so unreasonable that shocks the conscience of the Court. In the present proceeding, the petitioner has not challenged the terms of the allotment letter as being unreasonable. What should be the cost or the price and the terms of the allotment imposing interest on defaulted amount cannot be interfered with by the Courts unless, the terms are so unreasonable that shocks the conscience of the Court. In the present proceeding, the petitioner has not challenged the terms of the allotment letter as being unreasonable. The only plea taken by the petitioner is since the house in question was not handed over to the petitioner, the Board is not justified in charging penal interest due to which the total cost of the house has risen to Rs. 22,36,289. 8. From the materials on record it appears that vide allotment letter dated 20.08.2010, the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 3,22,520 by 30.09.2010 however, the petitioner failed to deposit the said amount on the plea that the house which was allotted to her is under illegal occupation. The said amount has been deposited by the petitioner only on 12.06.2013 after repeated letters issued to her. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the communication dated 12.02.2011 and 05.09.2012 and contended that immediately when letter dated 05.09.2012 was issued the petitioner deposited the amount in terms of the allotment letter dated 20.08.2010. I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The letters dated 12.02.12011 and 05.09.2012 cannot be construed to have condoned the delay on the part of the petitioner in making payment in terms of allotment letter dated 20.08.2010. By those letters the petitioner was only directed to deposit the amount in terms of the allotment letter dated 20.08.2010. The petitioner is bound by the conditions contained in the allotment letter dated 20.08.2010. 9. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.