JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This Writ Petition has been filed assailing the impugned demand vide letter dated 09.6.2009 issued by Opp. party No.3 -Allotment Officer-II, Bhubaneswar Development Authority appearing as at Annexure-18 and further for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Opp. party Nos.2, 5 and 6 to reconsider the petitions submitted by the petitioner dated 10.5.2005 and 06.8.2008 in the matter of waiver of the demand of Rs.76,250/- towards damage charges. 2. Short back ground involved in the case is that in the year 1988, the Bhubaneswar Development Authority intended to construct a wholesale Vegetable market, Truck Terminus and Wire Housing Complex at Aiginia to provide accommodation to the intending persons for having a SABJI MANDI for Bhubaneswar, promising several other facilities. An area measuring Ac.20.89 decimals was allotted by the Government to Bhubaneswar Development Authority for development of the above Complex. Petitioner after coming across brochure, made an application in the prescribed form for allotment of a plot in the category of Godown-cum-Office and consequently deposited a sum of Rs.250/- and Rs.8526/- towards registration and application fees. A provisional selection was made in favour of the petitioner consequent upon which a registration number was allotted to him vide WP 18. The petitioner in response to the letter dated 05.8.1988 and provisional allotment, deposited a sum of Rs.8276/-on 29.9.1988 in the account of the authority as first installment of EMD. An agreement for allotment of the plot of the disputed land in the area was executed on 01.02.1990. The Opp. party No.1 also handed over the physical possession of the disputed land in favour of the lessee-Raj Kumar Chimanka on 29.10.1993. While the matter stood thus, on 26.11.1993 the Opp. party No.1 issued a notice against the petitioner directing him to pay 17 numbers of quarterly installments towards part price of the house No. A/3 (Go down-cum-Office) under the Aiginia Wire Housing Scheme to the amount of Rs.61,421/- till the end of December,1993 indicating therein that petitioner was in default of payment of the aforesaid amount. In the said letter, the petitioner was directed therein to clear the arrear dues on or before 31.12.1993. A reminder was issued to the petitioner on 21.3.1994 for making payment of 18 numbers of installments for the period up to March,1994 to the tune of Rs.64,034/-. In the said letter, the petitioner was directed therein to clear the arrear dues on or before 31.12.1993. A reminder was issued to the petitioner on 21.3.1994 for making payment of 18 numbers of installments for the period up to March,1994 to the tune of Rs.64,034/-. Again the petitioner was served with a notice on 01.6.1994 requiring him to deliver possession of the disputed house to the Enforcement Officer with an warning that in the event he fails to pay Rs.65,034/- on or before 30.6.1994, special damage @ Rs.50/-per diam for every day for over-staying in the house. This apart other legal liabilities are also to be recovered from him. The petitioner in response to above deposited a sum of Rs.34,000/-on 10.6.1994 and Rs.31,000/- on 30.6.1994. It is alleged that without verifying the record, the Opp. party No.5 issued a notice under Section 5 of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1972 declaring him to be an unauthorized occupant of the public premises on the ground of non-payment of arrear outstanding dues. Said proceeding was registered as O.P.P. Case No.34 of 1995. The petitioner appearing in the said proceeding objected to the allegations therein and requested for re-assessment of the outstanding dues for the reasons of his payment already made in the year 1994. Petitioner alleged that without verification of the actual facts, by an order dated 03.11.2000 the Opp. party No.5 directed the petitioner for vacating the disputed premises within a period of 15 days in the guise of unauthorized encroachment over the public premises. Against the said order of eviction, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Collector, Khurda registered as O.P.P. Appeal No.02 of 2005. The Collector, Khurda concluding the appeal, gave a finding that the learned Estate Officer should have formed an opinion while dealing with the case under Section 4 of the Act and thereafter should have passed an order of eviction under Section 5 of the Act. Consequently the Collector, Khurda setting aside the order passed by the Estate Officer remanded the matter back to the Estate Officer for reconsideration. Petitioner contended that after remand of the matter, there was hearing of the matter on different dates but the petitioner alleged that no final order has been passed till the date of filing of the writ and on the contrary the Opp. Petitioner contended that after remand of the matter, there was hearing of the matter on different dates but the petitioner alleged that no final order has been passed till the date of filing of the writ and on the contrary the Opp. party No.3 issued a letter on 08.2.2007 requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.54,687-65 towards the arrear installment dues up to February,2007 and damage charges from 01.6.1994 to 03.8.1998 to the extent of Rs.76,250/-, service charges Rs.100/- and a sum of Rs.2000/-towards litigation expenses, in total a sum of Rs.1,31,238/- on or before 28.02.2007.After receipt of the aforesaid demand notice, the petitioner requested the Opp. party No.3 to give him the detail particulars. It is thus alleged that the Opp. party No.3 instead of providing him the details of the account, by another letter dated 03.10.2007 demanded Rs.1,36,913/- on or before 31.10.2007. In the mean time, the petitioner even though has issued several letters but the applications at the instance of the petitioner remained undisposed of and on the other hand, the Opp. parties remained in their attempt of evicting the petitioner by hook or crook. Finding a threat by the Opp. party No.3 through his letter dated 09.6.2009, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as aforesaid. 3. The Opp. parties in filing their response submitted that petitioner has no ground for consideration of his case as because he is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement being a party to the agreement. He is a gross defaulter. Considering the delay in clearance of the installments/outstanding dues, the Opp. parties were constrained to charge damages to which the petitioner is bound to pay along with interest considering the delay in depositing the amount. So far as the petitioner’s contention that regarding pendency of O.P.P. Case after the remand in the Appeal, Opp. parties contended that there is no relevancy involving the O.P.P. Case in the present context. Be that as it may, in view of the subsequent developments the O.P.P. proceeding has been dropped in the mean time and as such there is no O.P.P. Case pending at present involving the petitioner. parties contended that there is no relevancy involving the O.P.P. Case in the present context. Be that as it may, in view of the subsequent developments the O.P.P. proceeding has been dropped in the mean time and as such there is no O.P.P. Case pending at present involving the petitioner. On his own submission, the petitioner subsequently depositing the part installment dues, service charges and litigation expenses, prayed for waiver of the damage charges as clearly available at Annexure-14, which application was rejected in the mean time vide Annexure-15. Thus the subsequent representation by the petitioner becomes irrelevant for having no chance for reopening the issue. As per the contents of the Agreement, the Opp. parties have no other option than to charge damages and the petitioner is bound by the same. The petitioner in filing a rejoinder affidavit refuted the allegations of the Opp. parties in their counter. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the pleadings in the writ petition, contended that Bhubaneswar Development Authority has not considered the case of the petitioner in its proper prospective and issued demand notice after notice illegally in absence of considering the fact of deposits being made in the mean time and further even without considering the request made by the petitioner for waiver of the damage charges. Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Bhubaneswar Development Authority on the other hand referring to the counter affidavit of Opposite parties contended that in view of the terms and conditions agreed by both the parties in execution of the agreement involving the property in dispute, the petitioner was not only required to clear the installment dues in time but was also required to pay damage charges for the delay in clearance of the installments. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel further contended that the Opposite parties seriously disputing the allegations of the petitioner made in the writ petition. Mr. Mohapatra claimed that for involvement of the disputed questions in the writ petition, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel further contended that the Opposite parties seriously disputing the allegations of the petitioner made in the writ petition. Mr. Mohapatra claimed that for involvement of the disputed questions in the writ petition, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds admittedly the petitioner had executed an agreement for allotment of the land for the purpose of Godown-cum-Office under specific terms and conditions between the parties and both parties are bound by the conditions therein and since this is a contract between the petitioner and Opposite parties, both parties are bound by the same. Any dispute involving the contract between them cannot be resolved through a writ court. Further looking to the submission of Mr. Mohapatra, since the O.P.P. Case has already been dropped, the reference on O.P.P. Case becomes irrelevant. 6. Under the present scenario, the only question now remains to be considered as to whether the demand raised by the Opposite parties appearing at Annexsure-18 and other documents involving the serious dispute between the parties with regard to demand, such a question can be gone into in a writ proceeding or not? There is no dispute that this is purely a matter of calculation of the due taking into consideration the agreement arrived in the Agreement. This is a matter of calculation going through the payments already made and looking to the conditions in between the parties, even though the writ is not maintainable but however considering that this matter was entertained in the year 2009 and pending adjudication for last so many years with an interim protection in favour of the petitioner by virtue of an order of statusquo passed by this Court on 09.7.2009, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the Opp. party No.6-Vice Chairman, Bhubaneswar Development Authority to authorize an Officer of the Bhubaneswar Development Authority particularly from Accounts side to sit with the petitioner and to resolve the issue taking into account the terms and conditions involved in the Agreement and payments already made by the petitioner in the mean time. party No.6-Vice Chairman, Bhubaneswar Development Authority to authorize an Officer of the Bhubaneswar Development Authority particularly from Accounts side to sit with the petitioner and to resolve the issue taking into account the terms and conditions involved in the Agreement and payments already made by the petitioner in the mean time. The petitioner may be called upon by giving appropriate notice and a decision as directed herein be taken in accordance with law taking into account the request of the petitioner and the conditions arrived at in the agreement involved within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. Since the petitioner is enjoying an order of status quo since 2009, such order of status quo shall continue till a decision is taken by the competent authority as directed hereinabove. Accordingly the Writ petition stands disposed with the observation and direction to the extent hereinabove. However, there is no order as to cost.