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;;