Chandigarh Housing Board vs Sukh Pal Singh Kang

Swatanter Kumar, J.—Chandigarh Housing Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, in the year 1936 advertised a Housing Scheme for general pubJic for allotment of built-up dwelling units in Sector 45A and B in Chandigarh. The terms and conditions were contained in brochure and were duly advertised. 4th December, 1986 was stated to be the last date for submission of applications. The dwelling units were three stroreyed flats which were offered in the scheme on tentative cost and were divided into three categories. The terms and conditions provided for eligibility and method of allotment; terms and conditions of payment and the consequences flowing them were mentioned in the brochure one of the important conditions of payment was as under :--"The exact amount of monthly instalment for each category shall be worked out at the time of allotment after the consideration money i.e. that total cost of the flat is known."

"HANDING OVER OF POSSESSION :

The allottee shall be entitled to the delivery of possession of the flat only after he/she has completed all the formalities and paid all dues and furnished/executed all the documents as required/prescribed.

"The flat will be offered on "as is-- where is" basis."

There was draw of lots on 14-5-1988 and allotment letters were issued to the allottees on or about 2-6-1988. The, allotment letter � had called upon the allottee to take physical possession and pay the amounts as demanded within 30 days of the due dates specified in the said letter. Rate of interest and watch and ward charges were also specified later in addition to other detailed terms and conditions. There was still another letter of allotment issued on 11-4-1989 and the Board on 2-8-1989 had informed that there was increase in costs from 2.25 lacs to Rs. 4 lacs approximately because there was improvement in the design, increase in the cost of construction material, labour etc. Sukhpal Singh Kang allotted ground floor on tentative cost. On 25-2-1992 another letter of allotment was issued to the appellant Sukhpal Singh Kang, allotting dwelling unit No.91, Sector45A, Chandigarh and the price indicated in the said letter was Rs. 4.95 lacs instead of 3.98 lacs. This letter of allotment was challenged before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3201 of 1992 titled as ''Sukhpal Singh Kang v. Chandigarh Housing Board and another''. Vide judgment dated 24-12-1993 the writ was partly allowed by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge held that there was a concluded contract between the parties and granted some relief proportionately to the petitioner and directed the cost of 12 flats which were constructed at a later point of time to be divided between all allottees of the scheme. This judgment of the learned single Judge, has been assailed in Letters Patent Appeals by both the parties. Letters Patent Appeal No. 429 of 1994 has been preferred by the Chandigarh Housing Board, while Letters Patent Appeal No. 37 of 1995 has b:en preferred by petitioner Sukhpat Singh Kang. Therefore, we propose to dispose of both these appeals by a common judgment.

The main controversies raised by the respective parties before us in these appeals have already been dealt with by us in our detailed judgment passed in another Letters Patent Appeal No. 792 of 1995 titled ''Chandigarh Housing Board v. K. K. Kalsi and others, decided on 15-3-1996, though dealing with a different scheme. For the reasons stated in the said judgment we do not find any merit even in these appeals.

The limited relief granted to the appellant Sukhpal Singh Kang by the learned single Judge is with regard to reduction of proportionate costs. The learned single Judge after discussing the law in detail, held as under :--

"In so far as the additional demand with regard to actual costs was concerned, the same was upheld. As has been mentioned above in the earlier part of the judgment, there is.a concluded contract between the parties. No case of any infringment of either constitutional provisions or violation of any statute or rule has been pointed out.

xxxxx

However, no relief can be granted to him in the writ proceedings when the matter pertains pure and simple to the concluded contract."

Having held as mentioned above we feel that the learned single Judge could not have granted the relief which has been granted to the petitioner in the writ petition. In the case of Chandigarh Housing Board v. K. K. Kalsi (supra) in somewhat similar circumstances we have held that the writ was not maintainable as it did not fall within the purview and scope of the jurisdiction exercisable by the Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and the controversy raised was beyond such scope and ambit.

Determination of minute accounts and niceties of accountancy are beyond the purview and scope of such jurisdiction and which will also not be permissible to deny the development charges based upon a reasonable and satisfactory explanation. In the present case the only additional controversy that arises for consideration is that whether the respondents have declared their reasons for increased cost to the satisfaction of the Court and further whether they were justified in increasing the cost as a result of delayed construction.

The scheme is a social welfare scheme. Its terms and conditions have to be read in objective manner to achieve the object of such welfare scheme. These schemes cannot be used to the disadvantage of the statutory authorities, if such authority provide satisfactory reasons for such escalation in the costs. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Board in the writ petition it was categorically stated that there was delay in the construction of 12 flats in Sector 45 A including flat No. 91 which was allotted to the petitioner. There were huts of the labourers which took time in commencing the construction. The area was also low-lying and the Board had to fill in deeper foundation to the extent of 8'' to 10'' as compared to 4'' to 5'' in the flats of other sectors. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the construction was commenced in the year 1990, by which time the cost of construction material, labour charges and incidental expenditure had increased comparative to other flats. The Board was called upon to modify the design and vary the construction as a result of which the cost was increased and Annexure P/3 to the writ petition was issued by the Board.

5A. We find that the explanation rendered by the Board is satisfactory and is not whimsical, arbitrary, or unfair. The effect of the judgment of the learned single Judge would be to vary the terms and conditions of the persons who were not before the Court and in whom a legitimate right had vested with regard to allotment of the flats. The allottees other than the allottees of these 12 flats have made the payment either in full or as per the terms and conditions of the contract and had taken possession long back. To impose a liability upon them, that too behind their back, to us appears, would not be fair. One satisfactory explanation has been tendered by the Board with regard to the delayed construction of these 12 flats and consequential increase in the cost,"then the matter is not one in which this Court would interfere while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

The counsel for the appellants have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Sadhana Agarwal (Smt) and Others, . This judgment in fact has been followed by us in other Letters Patent Appeal No. 792 of 1995 and for the reasons recorded therein, this judgment is of no help and aid to appellant Sukhpal Singh Kang. Learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner has also relied upon a judgment in the case of LIC of India and Another Vs. Consumer Education and Research center and Others, to argue that the present writ was maintainable and the learned single Judge ought not to have relagated the petitioner to the remedy of suit in regard to the costing. As we have already discussed that the present writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected, we also, therefore, hold that the question of relegating a party to a civil proceeding in the facts and circumstances of the present case does not arise.

In result, we accept Letters Patent Appeal No. 429 of 1994, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 24-12-1993 and dismiss the writ petition filed by appellant Sukhpal Singh Kang. Consequently, Letters Patent Appeal No. 37 of 1 995, filed by him, is also dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

Petittion dismissed.