Housing Board Must Refund Court-Sanctioned Amounts with Interest

The petitioner sought a refund of ₹6,63,669 paid by her father-in-law, N. Raju, to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB). In earlier proceedings, a Division Bench allowed TNHB’s appeal and dismissed Raju’s writ petition, but granted liberty to apply to the Board for a refund, directing payment within eight weeks of an application, with interest.

After Raju and subsequently his son, the petitioner’s husband, died, the petitioner submitted a refund representation on 9 March 2026. The Board did not respond, prompting this petition for mandamus.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring TNHB to act on the refund application pursuant to the Division Bench’s order.

Whether the Board’s failure to respond to the petitioner’s representation warranted mandamus directing payment of the refund with interest.

The Court considered the Division Bench’s earlier order, which permitted an application for refund of ₹6,63,669 and directed TNHB to refund the amount within eight weeks of receiving the application, with interest.

It also applied the principle that a public authority’s failure to act on a refund application permitted by a court order may be addressed through mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Division Bench had already recognised the petitioner’s predecessor’s entitlement to seek a refund and required the Board to act within a specified period upon application. The petitioner submitted a representation with supporting documents, but the Board left it unanswered.

The Court held that such indefinite inaction could not be countenanced and that the petitioner should not be made to pursue the Board for a refund already sanctioned by the prior judicial order.

No costs were ordered.