- (1.) Heard Sri. Pradeep Kumar Trivedi, petitioner in person, Sri. A.P. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent.
(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned demand notice dated 6 January, 2018, whereby, petitioner has been called upon to deposit Rs.1,31,890/- towards arrears of cost of the plot including interest and other charges. Petitioner was allotted MIG Flat in Govindpur Scheme on Self Finance basis by the Allahabad Development Authority on 15 March, 1990. In terms of letter of allotment, petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs.22,100/- in four quarterly installments with a further condition that in case of default in payment of any installment within the stipulated period, petitioner shall be liable to pay interest on the said installment @ 15%. Consequently, petitioner deposited the first installment on 20 April, 1990, subsequent to which the possession of the said flat was handed over to the petitioner on 28 April, 1990. It appears that Development Authority sent to the petitioner a demand notice dated 19 December, 1997 raising demand at Rs.88,681/- to which petitioner replied denying his liability to pay stating that there is no outstanding dues against him. Finally, demand notice dated 29 May, 2007 and 8 August, 2007, were issued against the petitioner by the Development Authority directing him to pay within the stipulated time or else the allotment of the said flat shall stand cancelled. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred a petition bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39603 of 2007, wherein, this Court passed an order on 23 August, 2007 directing the respondent-Development Authority to give the break-up of the outstanding dues against the petitioner by means of a reasoned order. Pursuant thereof, Development Authority issued a calculation chart dated 8 September, 2007 giving the break-up of the outstanding dues against the petitioner, thus, raising demand at Rs.82,280/- which included penal interest @ 15% for delayed payment of the installment. The demand was assailed by the petitioner in a subsequent petition bearing Writ Tax No. 432 of 2008. The Division Bench disposed of the writ petition by the order dated 28 October, 2013. Operative portion of the order reads thus: "16. The fact that the petitioner could only make arrangement of funds after the tripartite agreement dated 23rd August, 1991 cannot absolve him of his liability to make payment of the purchase money in accordance with the payment schedule and in failing to do so he has made himself liable to pay penal interest for delayed payment. Thus, the demand raised by the respondent No. 5 cannot be said to be absolutely illegal or arbitrary and the petitioner is liable to pay the outstanding amount to the respondent No. 4 (appropriate authority). However, looking at the facts of the case and also in order to meet the ends of justice it is directed that the petitioner may move a fresh representation before the respondent No. 4 (appropriate authority) with a prayer to mitigate the interest chargeable on the outstanding amount and the respondent No. 4 (appropriate authority) may consider and dispose of the said representation by means of a speaking order expeditiously, as the question of quantum of interest is in the domain of the respondent only, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 17. Further, the petitioner may also make a fresh representation before the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 with regard to his grievance in the context of the enhanced valuation of the flat and charging/levying of enhanced rate of water tax in consequence thereof. The said representation shall be decided by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the aforesaid representation, by means of a reasoned speaking order, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 18. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed off."
(3.) It appears that pursuant thereof, the impugned demand has been raised against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to reagitate the factual matrix contending that nothing is outstanding against the petitioner, which was subject-matter of dispute of the earlier writ petition. The Court clearly recorded a finding against the petitioner that demand notice issued by the Development Authority is absolutely legal and petitioner is liable to pay the outstanding amount to the Development Authority. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to move afresh representation before the Development Authority with a limited prayer to mitigate the interest chargeable on the outstanding amount in consequence of enhanced valuation of the flat.;