AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
The petitioners in this WP under art. 226 dated February 3, 2011 are questioning a claim made by the West Bengal Housing Board in a letter No. 518 dated January 7, 2011 (WP p.68). The Board asked the petitioners to pay Rs. 3,96,636 penal interest for delay in payment of price for one E-Type flat allotted to them. The petitioners submitted an application for purchase of one E-Type apartment with an area in car park in "Eastern High", New Town, Kolkata, a project of the Board. They paid Rs. 1,50,000 application money on September 29, 2008(WP p.25). The Board issued the provisional allotment letter dated February 6, 2009 (WP p.26) mentioning that the price for the flat was Rs. 26,74,200 and asking the petitioners to pay Rs. 25,74,200 balance price within sixty days from the date of the letter.
The petitioners requested for extension of time and started paying in instalments according to their convenience. By a letter dated July 30, 2009 (WP p.32) the Board allowed extension up to September 4, 2009 on the condition that interest on Rs. 25,74,200 would be paid for the extended period.
For allottees whose payments fell due on and from August 31, 2008 the Board took a decision to extend the time for payment without interest till June 30, 2010. The decision was not to apply to the allotment of the petitioners; for their allotment letter itself was issued only on February 6, 2009.
But a copy of the decision was sent to them in the form of letter dated June 7, 2010 (WP p.33). Relying on this, they took the stand that they were not liable to pay interest for delay in payment of balance price for their flat. Their such claim was turned down by the Board that issued the letter dated January 7, 2011 demanding interest.
The petitioners'' whole case is based on the letter dated June 7, 2010. Their counsel has strenuously argued that once the Board informed them that they would not be liable to pay interest for delay in payment of price for their flat, the Board could not make the demand for interest. It is submitted that by June 2010 the petitioners paid the full price for their flat. By the letter dated July 30, 2009 they were asked to pay the full price by September 4, 2009. They paid it in instalments.
In the Affidavit-in-Opposition it has been categorically stated that the decision of the Board to permit the allottees whose payments fell due on and from August 31, 2008 and who were permitted extension without penal interest till June 30, 2010, was sent to the petitioners by the letter dated June 7, 2010 by mistake.
The petitioners have not explained how the decision could apply to their case when their allotment letter itself was issued only on February 6, 2009 and they had already been informed of extension subject to payment of interest on the balance price. I am, therefore, of the view that the Board was justified in making the demand. For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.