The main legal point established is the entitlement to interest and damages under the Interest Act, 1978, and previous judgments, based on the actions of the respondent-authorities.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

Daya Chaudhary, J. - The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant interest on the amount of Rs. 4,72,180/-, which has been charged on account of payment of less payment of Rs. 2/-, while paying instalments in respect of two bedroom flat in Sector 63, Chandigarh on leasehold basis under Retired/Retiring category of Sub scheme "A" allotted to the petitioner in draw of lots held on 07.04.2010. A further prayer has also been made by the petitioner for grant of compensation on account of harassment and damages suffered by him due to delayed possession in spite of depositing full amount for allotment of flat.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition are that respondent-authority i.e. Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh floated a scheme of two bedroom flats in Sector 63, Chandigarh on leasehold basis under Retired/Retiring category of Sub scheme "A". The total consideration of the flat was fixed as Rs. 28,64,051/-. Petitioner was registered for allotment of flat on second floor and was successful in draw of lots held on 07.04.2010. He paid all the instalments as per registration letter dated 15.06.2016 (Annexure P-2). Third instalment was paid by the petitioner on 26.04.2013, much earlier before the last date of payment i.e. 03.05.2013. He paid Rs. 8,17,630/- instead of Rs. 8,17,632/-. He was not given possession in spite of depositing the total amount. Orally he was informed to deposit Rs. 100/- and thereafter Rs. 17,000/- as penalty amount as he deposited third instalment as Rs. 8,17,630/-, which was Rs. 2/- less than the due amount. On the asking of the respondent-authority, the petitioner deposited said amount of Rs. 100/- on 07.04.2015 and Rs. 17,000/- on 21.08.2015. He made various requests for issuance of possession letter but no heed was paid to his request. Thereafter, the respondent-authority issued a letter for demand of more amount of Rs. 4,55,084/- on account of interest, whereas there was difference of Rs. 2/- only. Again he made representation but the same was not considered. Under the compelling circumstances, the petitioner had to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,55,084/- under protest on 29.06.2016 and while depositing said amount, it was specifically mentioned that he had deposited that amount under protest. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued an allotment letter on 12.07.2016. Possession of the flat was given on 21.07.2016 on payment of balance amount of Rs. 86,042/-. Petitioner made various representations to the respondent-authorities to refund amount of Rs. 4,72,180/- but no action was taken. Ultimately, the amount was refunded to the petitioner after delay of approximately two years. Petitioner also made representation for claim of interest for keeping the amount from 29.06.2016 till 10.05.2018 as well as damages for harassment.

3. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent-authorities in not paying interest on the refunded amount, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no provision to pay interest to any of the allottee in case any excess amount has been paid. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment, in case there is delay in payment of the amount, the allottee has to pay interest @ 18% per annum for the first month and during second month, the interest is @ 21% per annum and in the third month interest is @ 24% per annum. He further submits that no extension is allowed beyond a period of three months. In the present case, the interest was levied as per the terms and conditions. It is further mentioned in the reply that the Chairman of the Board is competent to allow extension beyond the period of three months or revival of registration in case of exceptional circumstances on written request subject to payment of interest @ 30% per annum beyond the period of three months. The case of the petitioner was con