CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD Vs. BALDEV SINGH DHANJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge, dated 30/08/1989, rendered in C. W.P. No. 4482 of 1986. This judgment will also dispose of L. P. As. Nos. 2283 to 2294 of 1989 and 1374 to 1377 of 1990 filed by the Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh, as well as Cross Appeals L. P. As. Nos.986 and 1370 of 1990, L. P. As. Nos.22 and 23 of 1991 filed by the petitioners of the aforesaid civil writ petition, as questions of law and fact involved in them is common. The facts for purposes of disposal, however, are taken from L. P. A. No.2282 of 1989.

(2.) The Chandigarh Housing Board (hereinafter called the "Board") floated a Scheme in the year 1976 for the construction of flats of different categories for allotment to different categories of residents of Chandigarh. Applications for allotment were invited and the tentative prices were also advertised. In the year 1977, fresh applications for allotment were invited and the said applications were registered from 1-12-1977 to 15-1-1978. It was stipulated that the houses were to be constructed within a period of three years and were to be allotted by draw of lots. A copy of the advertisement is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-1. The tentative price of various categories of flats were once again made known to the prospective applicants. The mode and manner of payment, initial deposit and the likely completion time schedule was also communicated. It is stated that the petitioner in response to the advertisement published in the Tribune in December, 1977 and January, 1978, submitted applications for the allotment of LIG (Upper) flats and on the applications having been found to be in order, they were duly registered. It appears that in the year 1980, there was some change in the policy of the Board and it was decided to allow flats to be built for LIG (Upper) Category for allotment to the persons, who had applied for MIG (Lower) Category of flats i.e. the Board decided to club together both the aforementioned categories into one category. The Board thereafter issued letters to the respondent in September, 1980 indicating the change of plan and also the tentative price now determined for the flats of various categories, and called upon them to exercise their option for various categories of flats offered. Pursuant to the offer, the petitioners gave their option for MIG (Duplex) flats. It appears that the policy of the Board for allotting flats and the price fixed did not find favour with the petitioners and they filed a representation before the Board, and on no action having being taken they filed Civil Writ Petition No.2412 of 1982 (Baldev Singh Dhanju v. Chandigarh Housing Board) which was disposed of on 9/05/1986, with the following observations :

(3.) Mr. Anand Swaroop, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant Board, has contended that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, should not have interfered with the matter as the offer made to the respondents vide Annexure P-4 with regard to the price and also other conditions had been accepted by the respondents which led to the creation of a valid contract between the parties. To highlight his argument he has drawn our attention to cl.(3) of the letter of allotment in which the total price and the payment schedule has been laid down. He has stressed that in pursuance of the aforesaid letter, the petitioners filed affidavits and entered into formal agreements with the Board accepting all the stipulated conditions. He has also cited Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1076 in support of his case.