IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.113 of 2017 ====================================================== The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Smt. Laxminiya Devi and Anr Wife of Sri Jagdish Ram Resident of House No. A/2, Purnendu Nagar, P.O. P.S. - Phulbari Sharif. 2. Chairman Pricing Committee, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12334 of 2016 ====================================================== Laxmina Devi wife of Shri Jagdish Ram resident of Village and P.O.- Brahmapur, P.S.- Brahmpur, Distt.- Bhojpur Ara. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Development Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Bihar State Housing Board through its chairman, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Sardar Patel Road, 3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Sardar Patel Road, Patna. 4. The State Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, Sardar Patel Road, Patna. 5. The Revenue Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Sardar Patel Road, Patna. 6. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Sardar Patel Road, Patna. 7. The Assistant Engineer cum Sub Divisional Officer Housing Board at Ara., Distt.- Bhojpur. 8. The Chairman Pricing Committee, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Sardar Patel Road, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 113 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Advocate Patna High Court CWJC No.113 of 2017(7) dt.01-05-2025 2/10 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12334 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar- SC11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 7 01-05-2025 CWJC No.113 of 2017. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi appearing for Bihar State Housing Board and learned counsel Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha appearing for respondent no.1 and also learned counsel appearing for State. 2. The present writ application has been filed by the Bihar State Housing Board for quashing the order contained in Memo No.334 dated 15.01.2015 (Annexure-3) issued under the signature of Chairman, Pricing Committee of Bihar State Housing Board, whereby the calculation made by the Housing Board has been rejected and it has been directed not to calculate the interest on the differential amount, between the revised cost and previous cost. 3. The brief facts of the case is that respondent no.1, Smt. Laxmina Devi was allotted a Lower Income Group, House No.31 through Letter no.190 dated 27.08.1992 in which altogether seventeen clauses have been mentioned and it was categorically stated that the agreement will be executed on the behest of allottee and the allottee would have to make efforts for Patna High Court CWJC No.113 of 2017(7) dt.01-05-2025 3/10 the same. The Housing Board acquired a chunk of land at Dalpatpur, Ara, after taking loan from HUDCO for construction of 126 lower income group houses. The scheme was approved by the Board in its 198th meeting held on 18.10.2002. In Phase- II in the cost of land acquisition the Board had paid Rs.56,90,800/- as decretal amount as per this Court’s order and the development works started and went on till 2001-02. After completion of development of the project, property was reassessed/valued and on construction of 126 LIG Units. Rs.2,31,21,952.52/- was expanded and thus the cost of one unit came to Rs.183507.56/- as on 31.03.2002. 4. The petitioner further stated that through letter no.190 dated 27.08.1992 the allottee was allotted LIG House No.31, thereafter on 18.01.1996 agreement was executed between the parties (Annexure-1) by which the entire amount was to be paid by the respondent no.1 in 120 installments. The record shows that the possession of the unit was given to the respondent no.1 on 17.05.2007. The petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to various important clauses contained in the agreement such as Clause-3(a), 3(b), 4(a), Clause-8 etc. and it is considered pertinent to quote Clause-4(a) and Clause-8 of the said agreement which are as follows: Patna High Court CWJC No.113 of 2017(7) dt.01-05-2025 4/10 “4. (a) That the total disposal price indicated above is according to the present estimate and hence tentative. Increase in the cost of the construction or development or due to increase in cost of land acquisition due to any decision/award of Court of law or legislation or due to increase in the cost due to final valuation or calculation of otherwise as per the decision of the Board shall be payable by the settlee either in instalments thereof or in lump sum within the period decided by the Board. The settlee shall under no circumstances be entitled to demand any accounts relating to the cost or question or dispute it and this shall be fixed by the Board in its sold discretion.” 8. That interest Rate 1% (one percent) per month shall be charged on all dues either in respect of premium instalments or rent for the period of defaults. Besides, in case of each default the following administrative and financial charges shall be levied:- (a) For M.I.G. House/Flat Rs.10/- per default. (b) For L.I.G. House/Flat Rs.5/- per default. (c) For E.W.S. House/Flat Rs.2/- per default.” 5. It is further stated by the petitioner that after revaluation of the property, the Executive Engineer of the division vide Letter No.812 dated 10.06.2006 informed the allottee that after adjustment of the amount paid by the allottee Patna High Court CWJC No.113 of 2017(7) dt.01-05-2025 5/10 Rs.1,56,043/- remained to be paid up to 31.07.2006 ( Annexure- 2).Vide letter no.10380 dated 16.11.2009 the allottee/respondent no.1 was once again informed and remined for payment of dues, but instead of making payment of the same the respondent no.1 challenged the demand by filing a writ application before this Court vide CWJC No.3865 of 2013 which was disposed of on 19.03.2013 as under: “Petitioner disputes the demand notice served on her by the Board. Learned counsel for the Board informs this Court that the Pricing Committee constituted under the orders of this Court is functioning in the Board where petitioner can raise her disputes. This writ application is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an objection against the demand notice before the said Pricing Committee which shall consider the same and dispose it of on merits in accordance with law, after complying with the Principles of Natural Justice, preferably within two months from the date of filing of objection by the petitioner.” 6. It is however pertinent to acknowledge that earlier on 09.11.2012 (Annexure-5 of CWJC No.12334 of 2016) the Housing Board had given a renewed demand of Patna High Court CWJC No.113 of 2017(7) dt.01-05-2025 6/10 Rs.2,82,315.43/- to respondent no.1 and in the said demand notice/letter itself it had been stated that the copy of the calculation chart was enclosed with the demand letter. The calculation chart which was enclosed with the demand letter/notice dated 09.11.2012 is at Annexure-5 in CWJC No.12334 of 2016. It is therefore manifest that the calculation chart was enclosed with the demand notice dated 09.11.2012 and the same was handed over to respondent no.1. 7. In terms of the aforesaid liberty granted to the respondent no.1 vide order dated 19.03.2013 passed in CWJC No.3865 of 2013, the respondent no.1 submits that she had filed statement of objection before the Chairman of the Pricing Committee, which is at Annexure-9 in CWJC No.12334 of 2016. Thereafter, the Chairman of the Pricing Committee is said to have carried out the proceeding before him in which the Housing Board had also participated. 8. After hearing the parties, the Chairman of the Pricing Committee passed an order contained in Memo No.334 dated 15.01.2015, of which the operative portion at paragraph-4 is as follows: “4- ;kfpdkdÙkkZ ,oa cksMZ ds vf/koDrk dks lquus ,oa vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls lfefr fUkEu fu’d’kZ ij igqWaprh gS fd%& Patna High Court CWJC No.113 of 2017(7) dt.01-05-2025 7/10 d& vkoaVh ds }kjk vkoaVu vkns”k ds fuxZr gksus ds cgqr nsj ds ckn ,djkjukek dk fuca/ku djk;k x;k gSA ,djkjukek ds vuqlkj fd”r dh fu/kkZfjr jkf”k Hkh iw.kZ :i ls tek ugha dh x;h gSA ftlds dkj.k ewy lwn ,oa n.M lwn dh jkf”k esa c<+ksrjh gqbZ gSA [k& cksMs ds }kjk vkoafVr edku dk iwuZewY;kadu fd;k x;k gS ftlds dkj.k edku ds dher esa c<+ksrjh gqbZ gSA x& cksMZ ds }kjk edku ds dher dk iqujh{k.k 31-03-2002 dks fd;k x;k ijUrq bldh lwpuk vkoaVh dks ugha nh x;h FkhA vr% lfefr ;g funsZ”k nsrh gS fd ;kfpdkdÙkkZ dks x.kuk i= fuxZr fd;k tk; ftlesa vkoaVh ds }kjk ,djkjukek ds vuqlkj fd”r dh jkf”k ugha tek fd;s tkus ds dkj.k ykxw lHkh vf/kHkkjksa dks tksM+k tk; ijUrq iquZewY;kadu ,oa iwoZ ds jkf”k ds vUrj dh jkf”k ij lwn dh jkf”k ugha tksM+k tk;] iquZewY;kadu dh jkf”k ;kfpdkdÙkkZ ls olwy fd;k tk;] rnuqlkj x.kuk i= fuxZr fd;k tk;A blh vkns”k ds lkFk; ;kfpdkdÙkkZ vH;kosnu dk fuLrkj fd;k tkrk gSA lHkh lacaf/kr dks vkns”k dh izfr izsf’kr dj nh tk;A” 9. From the operative portion of the order dated 15.01.2015, it is clear that the finding contained in Clause- ‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’ of paragraph-4 are against the respondent no.1. However, the finding given in Clause- ‘Ga’ of para-4 is against the petitioner Housing Board, which is the subject matter challenge in the present writ application. 10. The finding contained in Clause-‘Ga’ of Patna High Court CWJC No.113 of 2017(7) dt.01-05-2025 8/10 paragraph-4 of the order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Chairman of the Pricing Committee manifestly appears to be perverse and also contrary to the agreement between the parties for the reason as under: (a) In Clause-‘Ga’ of paragraph-4, the Pricing Committee holds and observes that a copy of the calculation chart should be given to the respondent no.1, meaning thereby that the Pricing Committee was under the impression that a copy of the calculation chart was earlier not given to the respondent no.1, which is factually incorrect because as pointed out herein above a copy of the calculation chart along with demand notice dated 09.11.2022 was given to the petitioner on the same date. Hence there was no occasion for the Pricing Committee to make such observation which on the face of it is perverse and incorrect. (b) The Pricing Committee has further directed the Housing Board not to calculate the interest on the differential amount between the revised cost and the previous cost, which is again contrary to Clause-4(a) as well as Clause-8 of the agreement (Annexure-1). 11. On being confronted with the aforesaid perversities and illegalities existing in the impugned order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.113 of 2017(7) dt.01-05-2025 9/10 15.01.2015, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 did not come up with any satisfactory answer and kept on harping that he had not been given a copy of the calculation chart earlier, which is not factually correct as Annexure-5 to the writ application filed by respondent no.1 itself states that a copy of the calculation chart was given along with the demand notice. 12. 12. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Chairman of the Pricing Committee contained in Memo No.334 dated 15.01.2015 is set aside to the extent it has directed the Housing Board to give calculation chart to the respondent no.1 as well as to the extent that it has directed the Housing Board not to charge interest on the differential amount. This Court considers it appropriate to direct the Housing Board to come out with the latest demand notice along with imposition of interest on the differential amount which must be in complete conformity with the agreement and the said demand notice should be given to the respodnent no.1 within one months from the date of this order and upon receipt of the same the respondent no.1 accepts to deposit the total amount further within a period of three months. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions the present writ applicaion is allowed to the extent indicated above. Patna High Court CWJC No.113 of 2017(7) dt.01-05-2025 10/10 CWJC No.12334 of 2016 In view of the decision given by this Court in the above connected writ application bearing CWJC No.113 of 2017, the present writ application filed by Smt. Laxminiya Devi does not survive and hence it is dismissed. Prakash Narayan (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) U