1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the contesting respondent-writ petitioners.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.2.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court allowing the writ application with costs.

3. The writ petitioner had challenged the demand notice raised by the Housing Board, Gaya on 19.8.2000 on the plea that he had already deposited the cost of the flat on demand made by the Housing Board and, therefore, there could not have been any occasion for escalation and demand notice.

4. Learned Single Judge of this court held that the demand made by the Housing Board was arbitrary and based on no reasons. The demand notice accordingly was quashed with costs.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is already a clause in the sale agreement saying that there may be hike in the price of the flat and accordingly the Board would reserve the right to make a demand. It is further submitted that there is also arbitration cause in the agreement and in case there would have been any dispute pertaining to the demand notice, the arbitration clause could have been invoked by the aggrieved person but adm