- (1.) THESE appeals are by the Jharkhand State Housing Board challenging the common judgment of the learned Single Judge in WPC Nos. 3924 of 2002 and 3952 of 2002, whereby demands for enhanced payment made by Jharkhand State Housing Board against the writ petitioners, the contesting respondents, in respect of two Middle Income Group houses allotted to the respective writ petitioners were set aside.
(2.) THE writ petitioners challenged the claim for additional amounts on the ground that they were arbitrary, unreasonable and not as provided by the terms of the contract. They had a further contention that the allottes could not be made liable for the delay on the part of the Housing Board. The Board contended that the demands were only in terms of the contract and it was justifiable on the terms of the contracts involved in the writ petitions. A contention was also raised that an arbitration clause was there in the contract and therefore, there was no occasion for this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at this Stage. The learned Single Judge quashed the demands, in the facts and circumstances of the case and directed the Managing Director of the Jharkhand State Housing Board to reconsider the matter afresh and take a fresh decision by passing a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners.
(3.) IT is seen that the learned Single Judge had given full liberty to the Managing Director of the Board to consider all the aspects arising out of the allotment letter, the hire purchase agreement and the other documents, based on the contentions raised by the writ petitioners. But, what is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant -Board is that if the intention was that the entire matter was to be reconsidered and a fresh decision taken after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner, then it was not proper for the learned Judge to make observations in paragraph - 7 of the judgment under appeal which have a tendency to restrict the scope of the enquiry by the Managing Director. He points out particularly to the sentence that the demand raised by the Board is wholly illegal, malafide and without application of mind and points out that it was not warranted, in the circumstances of the case, especially since the Judge was not considering the question in this count. According to the counsel, the question should be examined on the basis of the contract between the parties and the Managing Director had to reconsider the question based on the terms of the contract and resolve the dispute of the claims raised by the writ petitioners regarding their liability and denial of any liability to pay any additional amount based on any default on the part of the Housing Board.;