AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this writ application, as it appears, is that without issuance of any prior notice, the demand, as contained in Annexure -6 to the writ application, has been raised by the Jharkhand State Housing Board, asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 66,443/ -. The claim of the petitioner is that the said demand has been raised against the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between him and the Housing Board. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the maintainability of this writ application before this Court on the ground that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement itself and, therefore, the petitioner should go for arbitration to settle the dispute with regard to the amount and the demand raised by the Board. In support of his submissions Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the Housing Board has produced before me an order dated 4/12/2003 passed in WP (C) No. 5870 of 2003 and submitted that a Single Judge of this Court in a similar matter has considered the case of the petitioner in terms of Clause 25 of the Hire Purchase Agreement and directed that till the matter was decided by the Managing Director, the impugned demand shall be kept in abeyance,
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in LPA No, 722 of 2003 and LPA No. 723 of 2003, which has been annexed as Annexure -6 to the present writ application. On perusal of the order of the Division Bench, passed in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals, it appears that the demand raised by the Board without issuance of prior notice to the writ petitioner was quashed on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice.;