JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Sumit Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 23.06.2012 issued by the Estate Officer, Jharkhand State Housing Board whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.6,57,048/- for the cost of LIG Flat. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for allotment of the LIG Flat before the Bihar State Housing Board in the year 1995 and deposited the earnest money of Rs.7000/-. The petitioner was allotted Flat No.7LF III/S/18/21 for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,18,200/- as on 30.09.1997 situated at Dindli, Adityapur. He submits that the petitioner is residing in that Flat but the impugned order has been received by the petitioner to pay the interim cost of Rs.6,57,048/-. He submits that the said demand was issued after lapse of 12 years. 4. Per contra, Mr. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board submits that the Flat in question was allotted to the petitioner and the tentative cost of the Flat was fixed at Rs.1,18,200/- as on 30.09.1997. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.16,640/- after adjusting Rs.7,000/- from Rs.23,640/- and the balance tentative cost was payable in 120 installments starting from January, 1998 but the petitioner neglected to deposit the aforesaid amount and Clause 6 of the allotment letter provides for automatic cancellation of the allotment in case of violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment and Clause 8 of the allotment letter dated 12.11.1997 clearly provides that due to ongoing construction work, there may be some delay in handing over possession of the Flat and the allottees were required to pay instalments on time failing which the allottees will be liable to bear the burden of increased cost of construction and construction may be delayed. He further submits that the Flat in question has already been cancelled as per Clause 6 of the allotment letter. He further submits that the cancellation is not under challenge in this writ petition. He further submits that the Flat in question has already been cancelled as per Clause 6 of the allotment letter. He further submits that the cancellation is not under challenge in this writ petition. He further submits that the petitioner has approached this Court subsequent to the petitioner was provided one Flat and he has not complied with the terms and conditions of the subsequent allotment and in that view of the matter no relief can be extended to the petitioner. 5. As a cumulative effect of the above discussions, it transpires that the petitioner has not acted bonafidely and is seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, considering the fact that the petitioner is still in possession of the Flat in question, the petitioner is directed to make a representation before the respondent-Board within a period of four weeks and the respondent-Board will take final call on the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3469 of 2014 stands disposed of. 7. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.