AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
As common issues of facts and law are involved in these matters, they are being decided by this common order. Facts of S.B. Civil Misc. Application
No.281/2017 are taken as the lead case.
The matter comes up on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing direction to the respondent to comply with the
judgment dated 06.04.2017 in SBCWP No.14303/2014 and other connected matters passed by this court.
SBCWP No.14303/2014 and other connected matters was disposed of with the following directions:-
“1. That the impugned orders dated 02.09.2014 under the hand of the Additional Chief Engineer-First, Rajasthan Housing Board and the
consequent order dated 19.11.2014 under the hand of the Estate Manager, Rajasthan Housing Board be quashed and set aside.
The petitioner/s be allotted houses as per the original reservation letters dated 02.11.2011 and 03.11.2011 (as may be). For the costing of the
house/s to be now allotted to the petitioner, the very principles on which cost was assessed for allotment of MIG (A) (SFS) (Duplex) in the Pratap
Nagar, Sector-7 Jaipur as reflected in the Letter No.F2(3)Costing/1295/186 dated 27.05.2014 be adopted. The amount earlier paid by the petitioner in
regard to the house/s to be allotted to them be adjusted against the cost determined on the principles as referred to above.
The amount found due from the petitioner/s would carry interest @12% per annum from the date due till the date of payment. The costing of the
house/s to be allotted to each of the petitioner be conveyed to them within a period of thirty days by way of Registered Post at their recorded
addresses with the RHB.
The amount due from the petitioner to the RHB be then paid within a period of thirty days from the receipt of the communication from the RHB with
regard to the costing of the house/s.â€
Mr.Sudhanshu Joshi, counsel for the applicant submitted that albeit pursuant to the court order aforesaid allotment letters were issued on 04.05.2017
but the same are not in consonance with the order dated 06.04.2017. He submitted that on the matter coming up before this court on 30.05.2017 while
issuing notice on the application, the petitioners were directed to deposit the amount under the demand notice dated 04.05.2017 issued by the
Rajasthan Housing Board under protest subject to the outcome of the application before this court. Mr.Sudhanshu Joshi submitted that the calculation
of the amount in the various demand notices to the applicants are completely arbitrary, based on respondentRHB’s ipse dixit and in the cross-hair
of directions issued by this court. He has however not specifically pointed out as to which principle of costing reflected in the letter
No.F2(3)Costing/1295/186 dated 27.05.2014 which the court on the consent of the parties had directed to be adhered to has not been adopted.
Reply to the petition has been filed.
Mr.P.C. Sharma, counsel for the respondents submitted that this application is in the first place misdirected and not maintainable subsequent to the
disposal of the writ petitions vide order dated 06.04.2017. Except a review of the order dated 06.04.2017 sought on legally permissible grounds this
court has no jurisdiction to revisit its order. No ground for review has even remotely been made out. He submitted if at all the applicants were
aggrieved of the contravention of the order dated 06.04.2017 as alleged, the remedy available to them was of filing contempt petitions. An application
for issuing further directions in a decided case is therefore completely not maintainable. On the merits of the matter, Mr.P.C. Sharma submitted that
the demand notices to the applicants for the allotment of houses are strictly in accordance with the costing principles of the Rajasthan Housing Board
Act and Rules and consonance with the court’s directions dated 06.04.2017. He submitted that the cost of plot of Mahendra Kumar Choudhary in
SBCWP No.14076/2014 and demand notice in terms of the costing principles of RHB universally applied is Rs.23,13,283/-. After providing a credit of
Rs.3,88,965/- earlier deposited by him a sum of Rs.18,24,318/- was found due/payable and service tax of Rs.84,037/- was thereupon levied is required
in law. Hence as of 30.06.2014 the amounts due for the allotment of the house to Mahendra Kumar Choudhary aggregated to Rs.19,08,355/-. Further
as per the order of this court passed on on 06.04.2017 12% interest thereon till the date of the issue of the demand notice was also calculated with that
the aggregate amount was Rs.25,59,601/-. In the circumstances, Mr.P.C. Sharma submitted that neither the said Mahendra Kumar Choudhary nor
any of the other applicants in whose case RHB’s costing principles universally applied as directed by the court in its order dated 06.04.2017 have
been adhered to have any occasion to approach this court for further directions.
Having heard the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no case for further directions as sought in the application is made out.
The misc. applications stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be placed in each connected applications.