VANDANA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned demand made by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vide allotment letter, being Annexure -1 to the writ petition, at the rate of Rs. 43,560/- per square meter and further sought for a direction upon the Respondent No. 2 to issue a revised allotment letter at the rate of Rs. 39,600/- per square meter, as it was done in the case of other successful allottees of the scheme.

(2.) According to the Petitioner, she was found successful in a draw of lots held on 8th November, 2008 in respect of the plot, being Plot No. G-48, Sector-44, Noida (Gautam Budh Nagar). However, inspite of repeated requests no allotment letter was issued to her. Ultimately, on 30th September, 2010 such allotment letter was issued requiring the Petitioner to deposit the amount at the rate of Rs. 43,560/- per square meter though, according to the Petitioner, in the said locality i.e. Sector 44 price of land was fixed at the rate of Rs. 39,600/- per square meter for the others. On 26th October, 2010 the Petitioner deposited the allotment money and lease rent, as shown in the allotment letter, without any delay to avoid the penalty. After deposit of the allotment money, the Petitioner met with the Manager (Residential Plot) of the Noida authority on various occasions on account of the demand having been made at the rate of Rs. 43,560/- per square meter instead of Rs. 39,600/- per square meter, which has been charged from the other allottees of the scheme of 2004, but she has got only reply from the authority that since the rate has been revised, they have charged the revised rate. According to the Petitioner, there was delay on the part of the Respondent authority in issuing allotment letter but there was no fault on the part of the Petitioner. Therefore, she should not be compelled to pay the revised rate as proposed against the Petitioner. In this background, the Petitioner submitted that the rate which is being charged from the Petitioner at the rate of Rs. 43,650/- per square meter is unwarranted, therefore, the Respondent authority be directed to issue fresh allotment letter prescribing the rate of Rs. 39,600/- per square meter.

(3.) The Respondent-New Okhla Industrial Development Authority has come with a case that the functions of the authority are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and the Petitioner has been charged at the prevailing rate available at the relevant point of time. Mr. Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Noida, has relied upon various judgments to establish his case. Firstly, he relied upon Premji Bhai Parmarand Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors., 1980 2 SCC 129, to establish before us that pricing policy is an executive policy. The executive has a wide discretion in this regard and is only answerable provided there is any statutory control over its policy of price fixation. The experts alone can work out the mechanics of price determination. Court can certainly not be expected to decide without the assistance of the experts. Therefore, ordinarily it is not the function of the Court to sit in judgment over such matters of economic policy unless it is patent that there is hostile discrimination against a class. Relying upon Bareilly Development Authority and Anr. v. Ajai Pal Singh and Ors., 1989 2 SCC 116, he has further stated that while determining price of the houses/flats constructed by the authority and the rates etc., the authority after entering into the field of ordinary contract Acts purely in its executive capacity. Thereafter the relations are governed not by the constitutional provisions but by the legally valid contract which determines the rights and obligations of the parties inter se. In Delhi Development Authority v. Pushpendra Kumar Jain, 1995 AIR(SC) 1, the Supreme Court has held that mere drawl of lots does not vest an indefeasible right in the allottee for allotment at the price obtaining on the date of drawl of lots. Since the right to flat arises only on the communication of the letter of allotment, the price or rates prevailing on the date of such communication is applicable. In Maharia Re-Surfacing and Construction (P.) Ltd. and Anr. v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and Anr., 1999 1 AWC 122, a Division Bench of this Court has held that unless the contract is executed, if any offer is made pursuant to invitation to offer and the offer is accepted on some conditions, it will be simply a counter offer but not execution of the contract. Execution of the contract will come later on when both the parties are agreed on the terms and conditions. Therefore, if they do not agree to the terms of the contract, either it has to be accepted as a whole or it will be rejected as a whole but neither it can be rejected in part or accepted in part. In Duncan Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India, 2006 3 SCC 129, the Supreme Court has held that price fixation is an administrative discretion and it is not open to the Court to interfere in minute details, except on the grounds of mala fide or arbitrariness. Interference should be only within very narrow limits, such as, where there is a clear violation of a statute or a constitutional provision or extreme arbitrariness in the wednesbury sense. He has further relied upon Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Ors. v. Sea Shore Apartments Owners Welfare Association, 2008 3 SCC 21, to establish that the Supreme Court has held that it is open to the allottees not to pay the additional amount demanded by the authority and not to take possession, but after agreeing to pay the amount and by paying such amount and taking possession one cannot go back from the concluded contract. In Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and Ors. v. Manju Jain and Ors., 2010 9 SCC 157, once again it has been held by the Supreme Court that mere draw of lots/allocation letter does not confer any right to allotment. The system of draw of lots is resorted to identify the prospective allottee. It is not an allotment by itself. Mere identification or selection of the allottee does not clothe the person selected with a legal right to allotment.