JUDGMENT 1. It appears that the facts of W.P.(C) No.4102 of 2015 are different from the facts of W.P.(C) No.441 of 2015. In this view of the matter, W.P.(C) No.4102 of 2015 is being detached from both these writ petitions. 2. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, 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. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition [W.P.(C) No.441 of 2015] for quashing the letter dated 01.03.2011 issued under the signature of respondent no.2 whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.7,07,030/-. The further prayer is made for refund of Rs.7,07,030/-. 4. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted the house No.A/33 on hire purchase basis and the physical possession of the same was provided to him in the year 1984. He further submits that the said agreement is brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He further submits that he has already paid the amount in question however by way of the impugned letter contained in Annexure-8 a sum of Rs.7,07,030/- was demanded by the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board. He further submits that he has already deposited that amount. He further submits that the petitioner has also deposited earlier the EMI as was disclosed by the respondent Jharkhand State Housing Board but illegally that demand has been made. He further submits that by way of Annexure-7 the receipt of the deposit is there. He further submits that the petitioner has already deposited the amount and the amount in question has illegally been demanded which has been deposited by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies in the case of ''Arun Kumar Sinha v. Jharkhand State Housing Board & Ors.'' which was decided on 21.07.2011 in W.P.(C) No.1127 of 2010 and submits that the demand of the respondent-Housing Board will not sustain in view of the judgment delivered by the High Court in the case of ''Arun Kumar Sinha''(supra). 5. Per contra, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board submits that in view of the Clause 3(A) of the agreement, it was the condition precedent to pay the balance cost by 1 st May, 1994. This has not been paid by the petitioner. 5. Per contra, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board submits that in view of the Clause 3(A) of the agreement, it was the condition precedent to pay the balance cost by 1 st May, 1994. This has not been paid by the petitioner. By way of referring to the chart which has been annexed as Annexure-8/A, whereby referring to the dates, he submits that the petitioner has paid irregularly certain amount as and when he thought it fit to be paid and that is why that amount has been accrued which has been demanded by way of the impugned letter. He further submits that without filing any representation he has moved before this Court, thus writ of mandamus cannot be issued in absence of any demand in favour of the petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court finds by way of looking to Annexure -8/A which is the chart of payment, whereby it transpires that the petitioner has not paid the amount in terms of the agreement and he was required to clear the EMI by 1 st May, 1994. The petitioner has also deposited the amount in question without any protest. The petitioner has not demanded refund of that amount from the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board which is the condition precedent for issuing any direction by way of a mandamus. The case relied by Mr. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as in the case of ''Arun Kumar Sinha''(supra), this Court has considered this aspect of the matter that if the delivery of possession was delayed due to fault on behalf of the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board, in that situation, the petitioner of that case was held to be not liable to pay the demand amount, whereas in the present case from the chart it transpires that the petitioner has not paid regularly. The petitioner has been provided delivery of the Flat in question within the time as stipulated in the agreement, the petitioner has deposited the said amount without any protest. The amount in question has been deposited in the year 2011 whereas this writ petition has been filed in the year 2015. The money suit cannot be entertained after lapse of three years what to say about the writ petition. The amount in question has been deposited in the year 2011 whereas this writ petition has been filed in the year 2015. The money suit cannot be entertained after lapse of three years what to say about the writ petition. 7. In view of the above discussions and coming to that finding, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. 8. The writ petition [W.P.(C) No.441 of 2015] is dismissed. 9. I.A., if any, shall also stand disposed of.