JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records for the impugned Letter No. Allot.1.3/7493/11 dated 08.02.2013 issued by the 1st respondent and thereby quash the same as invalid and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to take appropriate action to execute a sale deed for the house building situate at Flat No. SC, 2nd Floor, Premier Tower, TNHB Flat at 20, Venugopal Street, Mogappair, Chennai, allotted to the petitioner by the 1st respondent vide order dated 31.01.2007.

1. The letter dated 08.02.2013 issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board claiming interest for the belated payment of installments by the petitioner is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner applied for an allotment of a flat in Mogappair Village Self Finance Scheme-II, Mogappair Division. She was allotted a Flat No. SC in the second floor at Mogappair Village Self Finance Scheme-II, Mogappair Division vide Allotment Order dated 31.01.2007 by the 1st respondent for a total cost of Rs. 26,31,000/-. The petitioner has paid an initial deposit of Rs. 2,80,000/- on 31.01.2007 as demanded by the 1st respondent.

3. The petitioner states that she had applied for an housing loan with Punjab National Bank, wherein, she is employed, for the payment of three installments towards the purchase of the said flat and it was technically sanctioned. The Bank insisted on a sale agreement between the petitioner and the Housing Board and there was a delay in completing the formalities. Thus, the petitioner was not in a position to pay the installments as per the schedule mentioned in Allotment Order dated 31.01.2007.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the delay was beyond the control of the petitioner and further on the ground that the Bank would not sanction the loan in the absence of the sale agreement and other documents, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the belated payment of the installments, which occurred due to certain administrative reasons.

5. At the outset, it is contended that the petitioner has not committed any default and it was only due to the delay in sanctioning of loan by the Punjab National Bank that she could not pay the installments as per the schedule in Allotment Order dated 31.01.2007. It is contended that the petitioner is working in a Bank and therefore she has to follow the procedure for taking the loan. Considering these factors, the interest claimed by the respondents has to be waved.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had objected the said contentions by stating that the terms and conditions are stated in the Allotment Order in clear terms. The Allotment Order dated 31.01.2007 was served to the petitioner and accordingly the final amount has to be paid on or before 31.10.2007. However, there was a huge delay in responding to the Allotment Order by the petitioner. The petitioner responded to the Allotment Order only through her letter dated 06.06.2008 after a lapse of more than 1 year and 5 months. Such a delay in responding to the Allotment Order is not explained even in the present Writ Petition. Thus, the delay is occurred due to the inaction of the petitioner in responding to the Allotment Order dated 31.01.2007.

7. It is further contended that as per terms and conditions of the Allotment Order 30% of the flat’s cost has to be paid before 30.04.2007, 40% of the flat’s cost has to be paid before 30.07.2007 and the balance 20% of flat’s cost has to be paid on or before 30.10.2007.

8. Further, it is clearly mentioned in the Allotment Order that interest will be charged at 9% for the delayed payment. Based on the Allotment Order, the agreement of sale of flat was also entered into between the petitioner and the respondents, Tamil Nadu Hou