ORDER :

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. - Leave granted.

2. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Additional Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu with Mr. B. Balaji, appeared for Appellants and Mr. S. Nanda Kumar, learned counsel appeared for the Respondent.

3. Appellant/Tamil Nadu Housing Board and others are before us, against the judgment and order passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No.684 of 2002, decided on 10.04.2008, preferred by Respondent herein.

4. Respondent, a Government employee, serving as a doctor in the Government General Hospital, was allotted a flat No.H.102/G1 in 80 HIG 'C' type House, Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur Extension, Chennai, by Appellant No.1 vide communication dated 26.02.1998, under 'Hire Purchase System'. The said allotment was cancelled on 11.11.1998, as Respondent had failed to deposit 10% of the amount of total cost of the flat, worked out by Appellant No.1 at Rs. 8,47,200/-. As per the conditions imposed by Appellants for allotment of the flat, he was supposed to have deposited 10% of the aforesaid amount within 21 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter to him. He failed to deposit the said amount. Thus, Appellants had cancelled the allotment to the Respondents on 11.11.1998.

5. On 05.5.1998, he made a prayer to the Appellants for changing the location of the flat to ground floor on account of personal difficulties. By 15.3.1998, the period of 21 days as granted to the Respondent for depositing the amount by the Appellants had already expired. Thereafter, Respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 15,200/- on 05.5.1998, further amount of Rs. 30,492 on 25.11.1998 and another sum of Rs. 27,017/- on 14.12.1998. The total of the aforesaid amount would not come to 10% of the amount required to be deposited by Respondent. But the aforesaid dates would reveal that subsequent two deposits were made by Respondent with the Appellants, after cancellation of the allotment on 11.11.1998. The Appellants had accepted the said amounts.

6. According to the Appellants, Respondent was a chronic defaulter and had not paid the amounts which were falling due but still approached the Court trying to take an advantage of various circulars issued by the State Government from time to time even though he was not entitled to get the benefits thereof.

7. It is not in dispute that Respondent had furnished all other details which were required to be furnished by him except that he committed defaults in payment of the initial amount and the instalments falling due thereafter.

8. Respondent filed a Writ Petition before learned Single Judge for directing the Appellants to hand over the possession of the flat or return the amount paid with interest. The Appellants contested the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge and submitted that the Government Orders of which the Respondent is trying to take advantage of, would not be applicable to him as his allotment was much prior in point of time. After considering the matter from all angles, learned Single Judge was of the opinion that no case for interference was made out, thus, he proceeded to dismiss the Respondent's Writ Petition.

9. Feeling aggrieved thereof, Respondent filed aforesaid Writ Appeal, before Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench with an intention to work out equities between the parties, granted relief to the Respondent and set aside the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge.

10. The operative part of the impugned order passed by Division Bench reads as under :

(i) The Respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant/Writ Petitioner as per G.O.Ms. No.174, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 07.02.1991 and the Housing Board Memo in 1-3/8028/91 dated 20.04.1992, and also as per G.O.Ms. No.29 dated 22.01.2001 and fix the cost of the flat and the interest liable to be paid by him and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) The respondent