- (1.) Challenging the demand notice dated 01.07.2013 whereby the price of the house bearing No. MIG-7 to the petitioner was enhanced from Rs. 15,60,401 to Rs. 22,36,289, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The brief facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are stated thus: "On 29.04.2010 in a draw of lottery the petitioner was allotted House No. MIG-7 and a allotment letter dated 20.08.2010 was issued requiring the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,22,520 on or before 30.09.2010. The tentative cost of the house was assessed at Rs. 15,60,401. Vide letter dated 04.06.2010, the Assistant Engineer informed the Executive Engineer that the house allotted to the petitioner was given on lease by Arjun Prasad to another person. On a representation of the petitioner for allotment of another house of similar description because the house allotted to the petitioner i.e., MIG-7 was occupied by another person, the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 12.02.2011 directed the petitioner to deposit the amount mentioned in the allotment letter within 15 days. Again, vide letter dated 05.09.2012, the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 3,22,520 and the petitioner deposited the said amount on 12.06.2013 however, vide letter dated 01.07.2013, the total cost of the house was enhanced to Rs. 22,36,289 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court."
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent- Jharkhand State Housing Board stating that since the petitioner failed to act in compliance of the allotment letter dated 20.08.2010 whereby she was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,22,520 on or before 30.09.2010, the Board has levied penal interest on the said amount. It is stated that an amount of Rs. 3,22,520 has been deposited by the petitioner only on 12.06.2013 and the petitioner has been directed vide letter dated 01.07.2013 to execute the agreement. Instead of executing the agreement the petitioner has rushed to this Court. Since the dispute relates to the terms of the agreement and it involves disputed questions of fact, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.;