By Court.-Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The writ petitioner-respondent preferred a writ petition seeking direction against the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi to execute and register the required indenture in favour of the petitioner in respect of House No. M-18 (Old) situated at Adityapur Housing Colony, District-Seraikela. Said writ petition of the writ petitioner was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 10th August, 2006 and the respondents were directed to inform the petitioner regarding any balance amount still payable by him or anything is required to be done in performance of his part for execution and registration of the indenture. The respondents were further directed to comply with the direction of the Court within four week from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the impugned order. Upon petitioner's depositing the balance amount and performing his part of the contract, the learned Single Judge further directed the respondents to execute and register the deed in favour of the petitioner.

3. Before proceeding to consider the submission of learned counsel for the parties, it is appropriate to give the facts of the case in brief, which has also been taken note of by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner submitted an application for allotment of a house on rental basis in MIG Scheme by submitting an application bearing no. 43 dated 22.12.1967. The petitioner was duly allotted one House No. M-18 (Old) in Adityapur Housing Colony, District-Sareikela vide letter no. 1918 dated 11.9.1968. It will be worthwhile to mention here that said decision was taken prior to coming into force of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982. In the year 1981 a decision was taken in the Board's meeting for allotment of house to the writ petitioner on hire purchase basis and said decision was communicated to the petitioner by Letter No. 4600 dated 19.6.1981. In pursuance of the said decision of the Board; a registered agreement was executed between the parties. The petitioner under the said agreement was required to pay Rs. 59,7001- which is the total amount of consideration for transfer of property in favour of the writ petitioner. Petitioner paid Rs. 25,388/- as 50% advance of the total amount and the petitioner was already in possession of the property. Before this petition was filed, petitioner through his agent requested the Board to inform any amount is due against the said agreement and petitioner paid the amounts as and when he was informed. Before filing this petition, the petitioner already deposited total Rs. 71, 3881- for which due receipts were given to the petitioner by-the Board.

4. However, according to learned counsel for the Housing Board, Mr. Sachin Kumar the petitioner paid the last installment in the year 1988. However, admittedly no deed was registered in favour of the petitioner till the year 2006 when petitioner filed this petition. The petitioner, through his power of attorney holder; who is a person who has filed the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner again requested the Housing Board to inform the petitioner or the power of attorney holder whether, still any amount is due and if any amount is not due, deed may be registered in the name of the allottee, Dr. Brajendra Prasad Verma. Since the indenture was not executed and registered in favour of Dr. Brajendra Prasad Verma, the petitioner filed this writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 376 of 2004.

5. In the writ petition the respondent-Board raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition questioning the authority of power of attorney. However that argument has been enlarged by stating that the same attorney, who is power of attorney holder of this writ petitioner, has entered into several contracts with the allottees of the Housing Board itself and intermeddling in the houses of the housing colony, therefore, he is not a bona fide power of attorney holder of the writ petitioner.

6. Be that