JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Mukhya Adhishashi Adhikari. Bhadohi Vikas Pradhikaran, Bhadohi, respondent No. 1, invited applications for registration and allotment of residential houses to be built, by means of an advertisement in newspaper. Consequently, the petitioner moved an application for allotment of a Middle Income Group house and made deposit of registration amount of Rs. 6,000, and allotment amount of Rs. 4,000, with the respondent No. 1. The approximate price of the house was stated to be Rs. 30,000, at that time.
However, there was provision in the rules framed about the registration for enhancement of the price. The petitioner was allotted a house on 7th January, 1987. On 9th November, 1987, the respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that the price of the house had increased to Rs. 65,920. Thereupon the petitioner and certain other similarly situated persons filed writ petitions before this Court. The writ petition filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 2237 of 1987. All those writ petitions were jointly disposed of by this Court vide its judgment dated 6th May, 1988. The respondents having offer to hear the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the fixation of the price of the house, the Court declined to quash the order of the respondent No. 1 enhancing the price of the house which was allotted to the petitioner's and ordered that in case it is found that the prices required to be redetermined, the respondent No. 1 shall recall the impugned order and refix the price of the houses. Thereafter, the matter was reconsidered by the respondent No. 1 but, being of the view that the enhancement was correct, the respondent No. 1 sent a letter (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) on 20th May, 1988 to the petitioner informing him about the same and required him to make the payment of the price according to the revised price. Thereafter the petitioner sent a letter dated 2nd June, 1988 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) to the respondent No. 1 for the refund of Rs. 10,000 deposited by him along with interest, feeling dissatisfied with the stand taken by the respondent No. 1.
3. Now in this writ petition, various reliefs were claimed but now the only relief pressed before us is that of the refund of Rs. 10,000 aforesaid with interest. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the letter dated 17th June, 1988 sent by the respondent No. 1 to him (Annexure CA-3 to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 1) whereby he was communicated that unless he deposits the balance amount with it, the amount of Rs. 10,000, deposited by him will be forfeited. In fact, it appears that by its letter dated 8th July, 1988 (Annexure CA-4 to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 1), the respondent No. 1 had cancelled the said allotment and claimed to have forfeited the said sum of Rs. 10,000;
4. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show how it could forfeit the amount of Rs. 10,000 aforesaid. Under Rule 11 (a) of the rules framed by the respondents regarding the matter, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the amount in deposit would be returned without interest to the applicant in case the applicant intimates before taking out of the lottery about the house that he did not want to take the house and Rule 11 (b) provided that in case after the allotment of the house, the allottee did not want to take the house and wanted to take refund, he would be returned the amount in deposit after deduction of 20% of the registration amount but no interest would be payable on the balance amount. In the same rule, it is also provided In clause (c) that in case no allotment is made in favour of a person after the allotment by lottery, his registration amount will be returned with Interest at the rate of saving bank.
5. Now the position is that even though the registration and allotment amounts were deposited prior to 7.1.1987 when the house was allotted to him and he (the petitioner) declined to accept the allotment on enhanced rate and had sought the refund of amount (Rs. 10,000) in deposit with interest by his application dated 2.6.1988 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), the respondent No. 1 has not refunded to him a single penny and instead, intimated him that the amounts would be forfeited in case the enhanced amount is not deposited within the time mentioned in the letter (17.6.1998) and even forfeited the amount by its letter dated 8th July. 1988 (Annexure CA-4 to the counter-affidavit).
6. As per rule 11, the refund of the amount in deposit would be made after an year which may be taken to mean after one year of the date of deposit of the amount with respondent No. 1. This refund was sought on 2.6.1988 which was much beyond one year of the date of the-deposit of amount with respondent No. 1, and no refund has been made as yet and, instead, the respondent No. 1 has purported to forfeit the same for which there was no provision pointed out. Taking rule 11 as such, out of Rs. 6,000, the registration amount. 20% would be deductible under clause (2) which comes to Rs. 1,200. Therefore, the balance registration amount of Rs. 4,800 and the allotment amount of Rs. 4,000 would be refundable to the petitioner. Under Rule 11 (c), there was a provision for payment of saving bank interest (which is normally taken to be 4% simple interest per annum), in case no allotment is made in favour of the applicant. This clause does not as such apply to the case of the petitioner but it recognises the liability to pay saving bank interest on the amount which remained in deposit with the respondent No. 1 for no fault of the applicant. In this case, the entire amount of Rs. 10,000 has remained at the disposal of the respondent No. 1 from the date of deposit (prior to 7.1.1987) uptil now (the year 1999). Under the circumstances, the respondent No. 1 must be liable to refund the amount of Rs. 8,800 to the petitioner along with saving bank interest @ 4% per annum to the date of actual payment.
7. The writ petition is consequently disposed of finally with the direction to the respondent No. 1 to refund Rs. 8,800 to the petitioner along with saving bank interest (r) 4% per annum from the date of deposit of registration and allotment amount to the date of actual payment to the petitioner within a month from today. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.