Allowed¶34

The Bihar State Housing Board v. Pramila Sinha

Patna HC19 Jul 2024L.P.A/120/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Repeat/breach of Article 226 writ discretion barred once matter remitted to Arbitrator; Bihar State Housing Board v. Sinha allottee-respondents; flat allotted 25.10.1984 (tentative cost Rs. 80,350/-), possession 10.09.1994; final price never intimated despite reminders; demand Rs. 6,41,969.94/- with interest from allotment date; arbitration pending on same matter; petitioner agreed one-time settlement; 234-day delay condoned (I.A. 2/2020); LPA 120/2020 allowed, Single Judge judgment (CWJC 8423/2015) set aside, contentions left open before Arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge set aside, leaving open all contentions to be urged before the Arbitrator if the petitioner so desires, and permitting the petitioner to settle under the one time settlement scheme offered by the appellant.

The Bihar State Housing Board Vs Pramila Sinha — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the 234 days' delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal No.120 of 2020 should be condoned (Re.: Interlocutory Application No. 2 of 2020). +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

Sufficient grounds were stated by the appellant in the affidavit filed along with the delay-condonation application, and the 234 days' delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner had once approached this Court against the same demand and was granted liberty to approach the Arbitrator, the learned Single Judge ought not to have considered the matter again in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

Key takeaways

Once the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had been exercised and the matter remitted to the Arbitrator, this Court could not have again revisited the issue by way of the impugned judgment.ratio¶33
The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge set aside solely on the context of the writ petitioner himself having once approached this Court and obtained an order permitting him to raise the question before the Arbitrator.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, oral judgment (per the Honourable the Chief Justice, K. Vinod Chandran, with Justice Nani Tagia in coram), dated 19-07-2024, in Letters Patent Appeal No.120 of 2020 arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8423 of 2015. The Bihar State Housing Board appeals against a learned Single Judge's judgment rendered on a flat-allottee's renewed complaint against the Board's demand of Rs. 6,41,969.94/- (flat price plus interest computed from the 25.10.1984 allotment, tentative cost Rs. 80,350/-). The 234-day delay in filing the appeal is condoned (I.A. No. 2 of 2020). Though the Court recounts that the earlier adjudication found the interest demands unsustainable, it holds (¶¶30, 33) that the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution, having once been exercised by granting the petitioner liberty to raise the flat-price question before the Arbitrator, could not be re-exercised; the Single Judge therefore ought not to have adjudicated the same demand afresh in writ. Solely on that ground the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside (¶¶34-35), all contentions are left open before the Arbitrator, the petitioner may opt for the Board's one-time settlement scheme, and the Court makes no observation on that settlement or the arbitration merits (¶31).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.120 of 2020 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8423 of 2015

¶3

======================================================

¶4

The Bihar State Housing Board Bihar.

¶5

The Bihar State Housing Board Bihar through its Managing Director, office situated in 5 Mangles Road, Patna.

¶6

The Executive Engineer Division, Patna Division-1, office situated in Bhootnath Road, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Police Station- Agam Kuan, Patna.

¶7

The Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, 5 Mangles Road, Patna.

¶8

The Revenue Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, Office Situated in 5 Mangles Road, Patna.

¶9

... ... Appellant/s

¶10

Versus

¶11

1.1. Mukesh Kumar Sinha

¶12

1.2. Rakesh Kumar Sinha

¶13

1.3. Abhishek Kr. Sinha,

¶14

I.D.B.I. Bank Through its Manager situated in premises of Housing Board, 5 Mangles Road, P.S. Sachivalya, District- Patna.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Pawan Kumar, Advocate Ms. Pratibha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Divyam Verma, Advocate Mr. Subodh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Ms. Preeti, Advocate Mr. Ravi Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Ashish Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶17

Date : 19-07-2024

¶18

Re.: Interlocutory Application No. 2 of 2020

¶19

There is 234 days delay in filing the appeal.

¶20

Having gone through the affidavit filed along with

¶21

Patna High Court L.P.A No.120 of 2020 dt.19-07-2024 2/4

¶22

the application, we find that there are sufficient grounds stated by the appellant to condone the delay.

¶23

Delay is condoned.

¶24

I.A. No. 1 of 2023 stands disposed of.

¶25

LPA No. 120 of 2020

¶26

The appeal has been filed by the Bihar State Housing Board against the order of the learned Single Judge in a writ petition. The writ petition was filed by an allottee of a flat. The allotment was made as early as on 25.10.1984 and the tentative cost of the house shown by the Bihar State Housing Board was Rs. 80,350/-. The flat allotted was not complete and it was under the occupation of a stranger. However, on 02.07.1993, an agreement was entered into with the petitioner and on 10.09.1994 the possession of the flat was handed over to the petitioner.

¶27

The petitioner kept on reminding the Bihar State Housing Board that the final price of the flat had not been intimated. Later, the petitioner was faced with a recovery notice wherein Rs. 6,41,969.94/- was directed to be paid which included the price and the interest calculated from the date of allotment. The petitioner approached this Court and the learned

¶28

Patna High Court L.P.A No.120 of 2020 dt.19-07-2024 3/4

¶29

Single Judge noticing the fact that there was an arbitration case pending with respect to the very same matter, but however, on another question, permitted the petitioner to raise the question of the price of the flat also before the Arbitrator.

¶30

Again when the Managing Director of the Bihar State Housing Board issued demand of Rs. 6,41,969.94/-, the petitioner approached this Court. This Court found that the demand of interest from the date of allotment cannot be sustained and also that the further demand for interest would be unsustainable for reason of the price having not been intimated to the petitioner immediately after the allotment, despite various request made by him. We are of the opinion that the petitioner having once approached this Court against the same demand, wherein, and the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Arbitrator, the learned Single Judge ought not to have considered the matter again in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

The learned Counsel for the appellant also submits that the question was raised before the Arbitrator and while the matter was pending, the petitioner had agreed to a one time settlement. We will not make any observation on the one time settlement or the merits of the matter before the Arbitrator. We

¶32

Patna High Court L.P.A No.120 of 2020 dt.19-07-2024 4/4

¶33

only allow the appeal setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge only on the context of the writ petitioner himself having once approached this Court and obtained an order permitting him to raise the question before the Arbitrator. The discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having been once exercised and the matter remitted to the Arbitrator, this Court could not have again revisited the issue by the impugned judgment.

¶34

The impugned judgment is set aside but leaving open all contentions to be urged before the Arbitrator if the petitioner so desires and even permitting the petitioner to settle it under the one time settlement scheme offered by the appellant.

¶35

The appeal stands allowed.

¶36

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

¶37

(Nani Tagia, J)

¶38

ranjan/-

¶39

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date
Transmission Date	NA

The Bihar State Housing Board v. Pramila Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Bihar State Housing Board v. Pramila Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Kumar Saha Vs The State of Bihar

Pawan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mina Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

The State of Bihar Vs Yugeshwar Prasad Singh

Anil Kumar Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/s Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation Ltd.