JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to hand over the vacant physical possession of MIG House No. R-47, situated at Hirapur, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred as ‘the said house’) to the petitioner which was allotted in her favour, but has not been handed over to her as yet. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to identify the persons who are responsible for not handing over vacant physical possession of the said house to the petitioner and to appropriately punish them. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondents to pay interest on the amount paid by her from the date of deposit of the same till the date of actual handing over of possession of the said house. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted the said house through draw of lots held by the erstwhile Bihar State Housing Board on 05.12.1994 which was communicated to her on 06.12.1994 by its Estate Manager. Thereafter, a formal allotment letter was issued to her vide memo No. 99 dated 13.01.1995 intimating the tentative value of the said house as Rs.1,65,690/-. It was mentioned in the said letter that the petitioner had to deposit 30% amount of the tentative value i.e. Rs.49,707/- before executing the agreement and the rest amount of Rs.1,15,983/- was to be paid in 120 Equal Monthly Instalments (EMIs). Since the petitioner had deposited Rs.6,700/- along with her application form, she was to deposit Rs.43,207/- before executing the agreement. The respondent No.2 entered into a hire purchase agreement with the petitioner on 20.07.1996 after depositing Rs.43,207/- on 09.04.1996 by way of Bank Draft. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Dhanbad Division issued a common letter addressing the concerned Assistant Engineer and the Junior Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad on 24.09.1996 with a copy to the petitioner directing them to ensure handing over physical and legal possession of the said house to the petitioner by taking signature of the allottee as well as of the officer handing over the possession of the said house in the register being maintained in the office of the said authority. The said direction was never followed and no effort was made to ensure as to whether the petitioner had put her signature in the register showing handing over of possession of the said house. 3. After executing the agreement, the petitioner kept on depositing the EMI from time to time and she approached the respondent authorities on several occasions requesting handing over the physical possession of the said house to her, however, they kept on deferring the same on one pretext or the other. Finally, in the month of February, 2006, the petitioner herself went to visit the said house where she came to know that the premises allotted to her was being illegally occupied by some other person. Accordingly, she brought this fact to the notice of the respondent No.2 vide her representation dated 08.02.2006 sent through registered post on 09.02.2006 followed by repeated representations to various authorities, but all went in vain. 4. The petitioner also made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information regarding handing over of possession of the said house to some other person which was replied by the respondent No.2 vide memo No. 184 dated 09.03.2010 informing that as per the records, the petitioner had sold the said house to the respondent No.4 by executing a power of attorney on 29.05.1998. Finding no way, the petitioner instituted a criminal complaint being C.P. Case No. 1986 of 2009 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad against the respondent No.4 and her husband, namely, Shyam Pd. Singh and at the same time, she also filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3763 of 2009 before this Court for directing the officers of the Jharkhand State Housing Board to hand over physical possession of the said house. In the meantime, the petitioner was assured by the officers of the Board that in the event of withdrawal of the said writ petition, they would hand over possession of the said premises to her as due to pendency of the said writ petition, they could not take any step on their own. Under such assurance of the officers of the Board, the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw the said writ petition and accordingly the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.11.2016. 5. Under such assurance of the officers of the Board, the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw the said writ petition and accordingly the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.11.2016. 5. It is further submitted that due to indifferent attitude of the officers of the Board, the complaint case instituted by the petitioner was also dropped. The said power of attorney is fake and fabricated as would appear from matching the signature of the petitioner made on the agreement as well as on the alleged power of attorney. As per the bye-laws of the Board, a property allotted to a person cannot be sold by the allottee without prior permission of the Board. In the instant case, no permission of the Board was ever sought by the petitioner. The officers of the Board have connived with the private respondent (the respondent No.4) and they have handed over possession of the said house to the respondent No.4 in a collusive manner without any request to that effect by the petitioner. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that on bare perusal of the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 20.07.1996, it would appear that Shyam Prasad Singh (the husband of the respondent No.4) had signed on the same as a witnesses of the petitioner. The petitioner herself allowed the respondent No.4 to remain in possession of the said house and now she is making attempt to get an eviction proceeding initiated against the said occupant. Though no specific document relating to handing over the possession of the said house could be filed in the earlier round of litigation, however, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it was clear that the petitioner had made false statement regarding handing over the possession, otherwise, there was no occasion for her to keep mum for more than 10 years. After execution of the Hire Purchase Agreement, the petitioner never contacted the authorities of the Board for handing over the possession of the said house which was only a formality. The petitioner did not pay the EMIs, rather entire payments were made by the respondent No.4. The petitioner had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent No.4 on 29.05.1998 and on the basis of the same, the respondent No.4 came in possession of the said house. The petitioner did not pay the EMIs, rather entire payments were made by the respondent No.4. The petitioner had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent No.4 on 29.05.1998 and on the basis of the same, the respondent No.4 came in possession of the said house. The petitioner approached the Board for handing over possession after waiting for such a long period. If possession was not handed over to the petitioner, she should have approached the Board within a reasonable time. The petitioner had filed Complaint Case No. 1986 of 2009 against the respondent No.4 and her husband alleging illegal possession of the said house by creating forged document, however, they were acquitted from the charges levelled against them in the said case. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 stating inter alia that all the payments for allotment of the said house have been made through the bank account of the respondent No.4 or her husband. Though the agreement was made between the petitioner and the Executive Engineer of erstwhile Bihar State Housing Board, however, the petitioner later on executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent No.4. Thus, the respondent No.4 had come in actual possession of the said house with the consent of the petitioner. The petitioner had instituted Complaint Case No. 1986 of 2009 against the respondent No.4 and her husband, however, they were acquitted from all the charges levelled against them observing that there was no evidence against them. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The said house was allotted to the petitioner and a Hire Purchase Agreement for the same was executed on 20.07.1996. The petitioner claims that the possession of the said house was never given to her, rather the respondent No.4 conspired with the concerned officials of the respondent-Board and on the basis of a manufactured power of attorney, the possession of the said house was given to her. 9. Earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3763 of 2009 alleging illegal possession of the husband of the respondent No.4 in the said house. The said writ petition was however dismissed as withdrawn on the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the grievances of the petitioner were redressed. 10. 9. Earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3763 of 2009 alleging illegal possession of the husband of the respondent No.4 in the said house. The said writ petition was however dismissed as withdrawn on the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the grievances of the petitioner were redressed. 10. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has again claimed that the possession of the said house has not yet been handed over to her. On the contrary, the claim of the respondent No.4 is that entire consideration amount for allotment of the said house has been paid through the Bank account of the respondent No.4 and her husband and by virtue of a special power of attorney executed by the petitioner on 29.05.1998, the respondent No.4 came in possession of the said house. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner is ignorant about the possession of the respondent No.4 over the said house. The respondent-Board has contended that the petitioner and the respondent No.4 are related to each other and the said fact would be evident from the copy of the Hire Purchase Agreement in which the husband of the respondent No.4 had signed as a witness from the petitioner’s side. The signature of the husband of the respondent No.4 in the Hire Purchase Agreement has not been disputed by the petitioner. Though she has claimed that the Power of Attorney dated 29.05.1998 was a forged document, the said disputed question of fact cannot be entertained by this Court under extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent No.4 and her husband alleging manufacturing of document has also been dismissed and they have been acquitted from all the charges levelled against them in the said case. 11. That apart, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition in the year 2020 for handing over possession of the said house which was allotted to her in the year 1996 i.e. after about 24 years and thus the same has certainly been filed after an inordinate delay. 12. In the case of Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Dugal Kumar reported in (2008) 14 SCC 295 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “24. 12. In the case of Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Dugal Kumar reported in (2008) 14 SCC 295 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “24. As to delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner, there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant Company. It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of a High Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction is discretionary. One of the grounds to refuse relief by a writ court is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative, where the petitioner invokes extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, that he should come to the court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.” 13. Thus, it is well settled that the power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary jurisdiction and the High Court can refuse to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction on the ground of delay and laches. 14. It is the own stand of the petitioner that for the first time in the year 2005, she had filed representation for handing over the said house and thus she kept mum for about 10 years after allotment of the same. The first writ petition was filed by her in the year 2009 which was dismissed as withdrawn and after 11 years, the present writ petition has been filed. There is a well-known maxim “Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt” which means the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. 15. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.