Order : Seeking quashing of letter dated 11.07.2013 and demand notices dated 31.01.2011 and 11.02.2011, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner was alloted house no. B/4 on tentative cost of Rs.71,000/as on 31.12.1983. The petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the cost, that is, Rs.14,200/and the balance amount of Rs.56,800/was required to be deposited in 120 monthly installments of Rs.694/per month. A hirepurchase agreement was executed on 26.05.1984 and possession of MIG house of B/4 was given to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner deposited Rs.69,000/upto 16.12.1998 however, the leasedeed was not registered. The petitioner made several representations however, the details of outstanding amount was not given to him and on 31.01.2011, a demand for Rs.14,54,676/as on 31.01.2011, which was calculated at Rs.14,69,829/as on 28.02.2011 was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner gave legal notice on 18.02.2011, which was replied by the respondentHousing Board on 11.07.2013 directing the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues for registration of the leasedeed. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a direction may be issued to the respondentHousing Board to calculate outstanding dues in view of the policy decision taken by the Board. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondentHousing Board submits that a perusal of chart appended to letter dated 31.01.2011 would disclose that the petitioner has committed serious default in payment of installments. For the first 36 months, the petitioner did not pay installments and thereafter, he made payment of Rs.500/, Rs.1,000/, Rs.1,500/, Rs.2,500/, Rs.3,000/, Rs.4,000/, Rs.5,000/etc on different dates. It is submitted that in view of default committed by the petitioner, the respondent-Housing Board has levied interest, administrative charge etc. and therefore, the outstanding balance as on 31.01.2011 has swelled to Rs.14,54,676/. 5. From the materials brought on record, I find that the petitioner though has committed defaults in payment of installments, the rate of interest levied by the respondent-Housing Board on different amounts is not in consonance with the agreement executed between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on orders passed in W.P.(C) No.1127 of 2010 and W.P.(C) No.2606 of 2012 & Batch cases. In W.P.(C) No.3825 of 2013, the respondentHousing Board gave a fresh calculation to the allottee, rationalising the rate of interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on orders passed in W.P.(C) No.1127 of 2010 and W.P.(C) No.2606 of 2012 & Batch cases. In W.P.(C) No.3825 of 2013, the respondentHousing Board gave a fresh calculation to the allottee, rationalising the rate of interest. From the calculation chart appended to letter dated 31.01.2011, I find that the petitioner was required to pay installment upto May, 1994 however, the respondentHousing Board did not take action, in time and in the meantime, the outstanding dues against the petitioner mounted to Rs.14,54,676/. 6. Considering the above facts, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to approach the Managing Director with a detailed representation, producing details of payments. If the representation is made by the petitioner within four weeks, the same shall be considered by the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board in terms of Board's decision and keeping in view the fact that, atleast after May, 1994, the agreement with the petitioner was required to be cancelled and no interest could have been charged. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of, in the above terms.