H. Ummal Farook vs Dr. M. Rajaram, I.A.S., The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and K. Jayachandiran, The Executive Engineer

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. S. Consious Ilango, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Raman, the

learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents.

The contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for disobedience of the order, dated

31.03.2006, made in W.P.M.P. No. 28682 of 2005 in W.P. No. 26239 of 2005.

It is stated by the petitioner that he is an allottee of Flat No. 13/6, HIG I Type in First Floor of Sector II at Madhuravoyal, Chennai, allotted by

the Tamil Nadu Housing Board vide Lr. No. O.P.5/1653/93, dated 17.07.1993, issued by the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer of

Korattur Division of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. As per the allotment order, the estimated cost of the said flat was Rs. 2,12,000/-. An initial

payment of Rs. 97,100/- had to be paid towards the cost of the flat and the balance amount was to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,669/-

for a period of 13 years.

It has been further stated that the petitioner had paid the initial amount of Rs. 97,100/- and he had also paid Rs. 2,12,000/- by way of monthly

instalments. The possession of the flat was handed over to the petitioner, on 10.03.1994. Even though he was willing to settle the entire amount

towards the final cost of the flat, the authorities of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had demanded Rs. 1,34,557/- vide letter, dated 24.05.1997,

and various amounts were demanded by several letters towards the difference between the tentative cost and the final cost. By a letter, dated

21.03.2003, the petitioner had been informed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board that the entire amount had been paid by him and that no amount

was due towards the cost of the flat. Therefore, the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had sent a letter, dated 17.03.2004,

requesting the petitioner to approach the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer of K.K. Nagar Division of the Tamil Nadu Housing Hoard

to get the sale deed executed in his favour. At that stage, a letter had been sent by the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, K.K. Nagar

Division of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board stating that the previous demand of Rs. 90,805/- had been made erroneously and that after perusal of

the records, it was found that a sum of Rs. 48,894/- was the difference between the final cost and the tentative cost of the flat and that apart from

the payment of Rs. 70,000/- made by the petitioner, the difference that had to be paid was only Rs. 41,911/-. In spite of the petitioner paying the

balance amount said to be due from him, the sale deed had not been executed in his favour. Therefore, he had approached this Court by way of a

writ petition in W.P. No. 26239 of 2005, praying for a direction to direct the respondents therein to execute the sale deed in favour of the

petitioner with regard to the property in question. An interim order had been passed on 31.03.2006, in W.P.M.P. No. 28682 of 2005 in the said

writ petition, directing the respondents therein to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner for Flat No. 13/6, HIG I type in I floor of Sector

II at Madhuravoyal, Chennai. The same has not been complied with till date. Therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to file the above

contempt petition against the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 31.03.2006.

At this stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, Mr. P.S. Raman, the learned Additional Advocate General, had submitted that the order

passed by this Court, on 31.03.2006, in W.P.M.P. No. 28682 of 2005 in W.P. No. 26239 of 2005, based on which the contempt petition has

arisen, has been suspended by an order passed by this Court, dated 20.07.2007, made in W.P.M.P. No. 17853 of 2006 in W.P. No. 26239 of

2005. The said order is as follows:

A careful perusal of the records discloses that the prayer in WP.M.P. No. 28682 of 2005 and in W.P. No. 26239 of 2005 are one and the same.

Of course, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 5.10.2005 in the main writ petition, an audit report dated 27.1.2006 had been filed before this

Court and based on that, this Court, passed an order dated 31.3.2006 as follows:

In spite of repeated adjournments and sufficient time given for filing reply for the Auditor''s Report, there is no response from the Housing Board

and none appears. The report is in favour of the petitioner. Hence, there will be an interim direction as prayed for.

The Housing Board, however, has preferred the present application to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the order dated

31.3.2006 submitting that the order dated 31.3.2006 was passed without hearing the Housing Board. Be that be. Unless the main writ petition is

taken up for hearing and disposed of on merits, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner/Housing Board would be greatly prejudiced.

Hence, the Registry is directed to post the main writ petition itself for final disposal on 2.8.2007 before the Court concerned. Till then, the order

dated 31.3.2006 stands suspended. This petition is disposed of accordingly.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not refuted the claims made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents.

Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the

order passed by this Court, dated 20.07.2007, in W.P.M.P. No. 17853 of 2006 in W.P. No. 26239 of 2005, the contempt petition stands

closed. No costs.