Court dismisses petition challenging interest reduction, citing abuse of legal process.

The court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging the rejection of their request for interest reduction and the demand raised through a one-time settlement. The court found that the petitioners had already filed multiple petitions on the same issues, failed to comply with interim orders, and misled the court. The court held that the petitioners could not re-agitate the matters that were already adjudicated and deemed the filing of the instant petition as an abuse of the legal process, dismissing it at the threshold.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Reconsideration of the rate of interest.
2. Validity of the demand raised by respondents through one-time settlement.
3. Legitimacy of the rejection of the petitioners' request for interest reduction.
4. Disposition of petitioners' representations.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reconsideration of the Rate of Interest:
The petitioners challenged the order dated 31.1.2017, which rejected their prayer to reconsider the rate of interest. The court noted that this writ petition was the fourth filed by the petitioners. The petitioners had previously sought relief regarding interest rates in Writ Petition No.4521 of 2016, which was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the petitioners' application. The Housing Commissioner rejected their request for interest reduction on 25/27.4.2016, noting that the office orders cited by the petitioners were inapplicable as the auction occurred before those orders were issued. This decision was not challenged by the petitioners, allowing it to become final.

2. Validity of the Demand Raised by Respondents through One-Time Settlement:
The petitioners also contested the demand of Rs. 50,27,83,046/- raised by respondents on 31.5.2016 under a one-time settlement (OTS). The court highlighted that in a previous writ petition (No.29003 of 2016), the petitioners had challenged this demand, but the court dismissed the petition on 21.6.2016 due to non-compliance with an earlier interim order. The court noted that the petitioners had not made the required deposits as per the interim order dated 29.1.2013 in Writ Petition No.4840 of 2013, which led to the dismissal of their challenge to the OTS demand.

3. Legitimacy of the Rejection of the Petitioners' Request for Interest Reduction:
The petitioners' request for interest reduction was rejected by the Housing Commissioner on 25/27.4.2016, stating that the interest was determined per the auction's terms and conditions. The court observed that the petitioners did not challenge this order and instead sought a one-time settlement. The court further noted that the petitioners had previously misled the court by making false statements regarding compliance with the interim order, which contributed to the dismissal of their earlier writ petition challenging the OTS amount.

4. Disposition of Petitioners' Representations:
The petitioners sought directions for the respondents to dispose of their representations dated 4.6.2016 and 9.1.2017. The court found that the petitioners had already approached the court multiple times regarding the same issues, and their representations had been addressed by the respondents. The court emphasized that the petitioners could not re-agitate the matter under the guise of new communications from the respondents, as the main relief sought was already adjudicated in the previous writ petition dismissed on 21.6.2016.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, noting that the petitioners could not challenge the same orders again after they had attained finality. The court observed that filing the instant writ petition amounted to a gross abuse of the process of law and dismissed the petition at the threshold.

---