(1) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 13307 of 1989, 16583 of 1989, 15757 of 1989, 15703 of 1989. 14773 of 1989, 14190 of 1989, 13864 of 1989, 13824 of 1989, 13905 of 1989, 15779 of 1989, 13823 of 1989, 13487 of 1989, 13412 of 1989, 13409 of 1989, 13307 of 1989, 13306 of 1989, 16615 of 1989, 1586 of 1990 and 2659 of 1990, since common questions of law arise for determination in all these cases.

(2) A reference to the facts for adjudication of the dispute has been made from the pleadings in Civil Writ Petition No. 13307 of 1989. Respondent No. 1 framed Scheme No. 1 and pursuant thereto invited applications in February 1986 for allotment of built up houses/flats at Pauchkula, Hissar, Kalka. Rewari and some other towns in the State of Haryana. These houses/flats were to be allotted on higher purchase basis on easy instalments. The allotment was to be made on draw of lot incase the number of applicants exceeds the number of houses/flats available. In the broucher the Sale price of HIG (ground floor) and HIG (1st floor) was fixed at Rs. 1,37,700/. and Rs. 1,16,50/- respectively at Kalka. The petitioner submitted her application for H. I. G. home at Kalka which was registered by the respondent No. 2 vide registration No. 18/gf/hig, dated November 6, 1986. The petitioner was allotted HIG (ground floor) House No. 13 by respondent No. 1 in 1987. The petitioner unsuccessfully represented to the respondents for delivering possession of the allotted house. The petitioner received allotment letter No. 2423 dated September 26, 1989. In the allottment letter, the respondents claimed enhanced price of Rs. 2,07,300/- for the said house asking her to deposit the money within 30 days from the issuance of the letter and obtain possession thereof. She was also asked to execute an agreement and take possession of the house within 30 days failing which her name will be removed from the allotment register and any amount upto 50% of the earrest money deposited by her will be forfeited. Sarvshri Madan Lal Kashayap and Pawan Kumar Chopra had applied for HIG houses under Scheme No. 1 at Kalka. Their applications were registered by respondent No. 2 on March 28, 1987 and July 21, 1987. They were allotted houses (HIG ground floor) Nos. 56 and 73 on June 13, 1988 and January 13, 1988 respectively at the original price of Rs. 1,37,700/ -. The application of the petitioner was registered on November 6, 1986 but an enhanced price of Rs. 2,07,300/-is claimed from her. The increase in price is wholly arbitrary.

(3) THE respondents in their written statement maintained that in the broucher it was stated that the price fixed was tentative and the Board reserves the right to demand any amount due to arbitration award, judicial award and finalisation of costs. It was controverted that the allotment was made in 1987 and it was made only in September 1989. It was further plea (sic)ed that the cost of the house which was originally fixed at Rs. 1,37,700/ and raised to Rs. 2,07,300/- has now been finalised at Rs. 1,50, 000/ -. When the broucher was issued the houses were in the process of completion. As soon as the houses were complete, the same were offered to the allottees. The houses are being offered to the allottees at the revised price.

(4) THE specific plea taken by the petitioner that Sarvshri Madan Lal Kashyap and Pawan Kumar Chopra who had applied for the allotment of houses under Scheme Nos. 1 at Kalka were allotted houses HIG (ground floor) No. 56 and 73 on June 13, 1988 and January 13, 1988 respectively at the original price of Rs. 1,37,700/- was not controverted. It will be useful to reproduce the avernments made in para No. 13 of the writ petition and the corresponding reply to this para by the respondents which are as under :- that the respondents have allotted and given possession of HIG (G. E.) Houses at Kalka under the aforesaid scheme to so many persons at the original price of Rs. 1,37,700/- as given at the time of registration. Sarvshri Madan Lal Kashyap and Pawan Kumar Chopra got their applications registered on 28-3-1987 and 21-7-1987 and were given possession of the houses (HIG (ground floor) Nos. 56 and 73 on 13-6- 1988 and 13-1-1988 respectively at the original price of Rs. 1,37, 00/- Copies of their respective letters of allotment are annexed as Annexures p4 and p5 respectively. Though the application of the petitioner was registered on 6-11-1986 but possession is being offered to her now at the enhanced price of Rs. 5,07,300/- which is discriminatory and is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. " Reply to para: As regards para No. 13 of the writ petition it is submitted that the Board has now finalised the costs of the houses and as such the contents of this para have new become redundant. It is further submitted that the houses which were allotted at the cost of Rs. 1,37,700/- and Rs 2,07,300/- has now been finalised at Rs. 1,50,000/ -. " The plea of the petitioner that Sarvshri Madan Lal Kashyap and Pawan Kumar Chopra were allotted HIG houses at original price of Rs. 1,37,7000/- was not controverted. From a plea which has not been controverted either expressely or by implication an inference can be drawn that the same was admitted to be correct. The respondents allotted HIG houses to Sarvshri Madan Lal Kashyap and Pawan Kumar Chopra who were similarly situated at the original price of Rs. 1,37,700/- while from the petitioner an enhanced price of Rs. 2,07,300/-for the same type of house has been demanded. Of course the respondents have stated that the price has again been revised and has been finalised at Rs. 1,50,000/- but the conduct of the respondents smacks of arbitrariness. The persons similarly situated have to be treated alike and the instant case no reason is forthcoming as to why Sarvshri Madan Lal Kashyap and Pawan Kumar Chopra were accorded different treatment.

(5) IT cannot be disputed that respondent No. 1 is included within the term other authority mentioned in Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, the contesting opposite party cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily with the petitioners and its action must be in conformity with the principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. Where an authority appears acting unreasonably this court is not powerless and a writ of mandamus can be issued for performing its duty free from arbitrariness and unreasonableness. In Premji Bhai Parmar v. Delhi Development Authority, A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 738, the apex Court observed thus :--" 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 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. " In the light of the decision of the apex Court, in an appropriate case, the question if raised has to be decided as to whether the enhanced price was fixed arbitrarily or in violation of the relevant scheme. In somewhat indentical circumstances the Madhya Pradesh Hingh Court in Smt. Sadhana Agarwal v. Indore Development Authority, Indore, A. I. R. 1986 M. P. 88, held that where the Development. Authority subsequently increased the estimated cost of the houses allotted arbitrarily and unilaterally, such fixation of cost was amendable to interference in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held thus : - "a public authority like the Indore Development Authority has to act in a reasonable and open manner in its dealings with the citizens who come forward in response to its invitation of applications for allotment of fiats The prospective purchasers from the Development Authority are entitled to seek satisfaction on the score of escalation of cost whenever announced by the Development Authority. Also the Development Authority has to show awareness of the binding effect of its announcement of estimates and it is rot open to the Development Authority as public authority to act unilaterally without taking into confidence the citizens with whom it is dealing and for whom it constructs. " I am not unmindful of the decision of this Court in various cases viz C. W. P. No. 381 of 1981 (Ravinder Rastogi v. The Housing Board Haryana) decided on January 15, 1982 by G. C. Mittal, J holding that the increase in fixation of the price of the houses on the basis of land acquisition award or arbitration proceedings would be permissible. In that case, 11 items of increase in fixation of higher price of houses were mentioned but only two items related to enhancement ors account of acquisition award and interest payable thereon relating to the land were upheld. With respect to other items it was held that they neither form part of the agreement nor were covered by other conditions of letter of allotment. In the present case the arbitrariness is writ large. As observed earlier the persons similarly situated were allotted house at original price of Rs. 1,37,700/- while from the prtitioner an enhanced price of Rs. 2,07,300/- has been claimed and when the action was challenged, the respondents informed this Court that the price has now been finalised at Rs. 1,50,000/ -. Their action cannot be countenanced. The respondents have not stated in the written statement as to on what basis they evaluated the price of the houses at Rs. 1,50,000/- and what were the circumstances which led them to enhance the price to Rs. 2,07,300/ -. I am left with no other alternative but to quash the order of allotment dated September 26, 1989 to the extent to which the respondents have claimed the enhanced price of the house at Rs. 2,07,300/ -. The respondents have not brought any material before this Court as to how the enhanced valuation was fixed. Under these circumstances, I direct the respondents to transfer the house to the petitioner on the original price of Rs. 1,37,700/ -. If the price of the land underneath the house has been increased by the Land Acquisition Court, or on further appeal Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition, Act, the respondents permitted to" correspondingly claim the proportionate enhanced price of the land with interest but they can only do so after notice to the petitioner.

(6) IN C. W. P. 16583 of 1989 an additional point has been raised. It is stated that the petitioner was originally allotted House No. 120 A by respondent No. 1 and he was also permitted to mortgage the house with his employer for raising a loan. But he was subsequently informed that he has been allotted House No. 108-A HIG (first floor ). It will be useful to reproduce the averment made in para Nos. 12 and 13 of the petition and corresponding replies thereto which read thus : "12. That apart from that it is also worth noting down that initially the petitioner was allotted house No. 120-A and vide Annexure P/ (sic) the respondent Board bas also issued" No Objection Certificate", for Mortgaging house No. 120-A to the petitioner for seeking loan The petitioner got the loan sanctioned against house No. 120-A. But surprisingly vide the impugned order the house allotted to the petitioner, has, been shown house No. 108-A H. I. G. (first floor), The original Allotment letter qua house No. 120-A is attached as Annexure, P/5. "13. It is also pertinent to mention that white changing the house of the petitioner the respondent did not give in any notice or opportunity. Now on the basis of the no Objection, Certificate" issued by the respondent Board vide Annexure P-3 the petitioner rids got the loan sanctioned against House No. 120-A and in case he is not allotted the same house i. e. , No. 120-A, then his whole exercise for getting the said (loan sanctioned would be futile and useless " REPLY 12 and 13. As regards para Nos. 12 and 13 of the writ petition it is submitted that the allotement letter was issued to the petitioner allotting 120-A,1st floor, HIG house, however, the same was earmarked to him in the meantime the allo (sic)tte of House No. 108-A HIG 1st Floor made a representation to the effect that he may be allowed 1st floor of house No. 120 HIG because he is real brother had been allowed ground floor of house No. 120-A Since the request was found genuine and as such change was made accordingly. The petitioner has not been put any disadvantage with this change because cost of the house are the same. No objection certificate for mortgaging the tenament are usually given to the allottees on their request in order to facilitate them for obtaining loan from concerned department. However Annexure P-5, do not show that no Objection Certificate was given to the petitioner. Since no farmal allotment letter was issued and as such the question of giving any hearing to the petitioner does not arise. " It was wholly unjustified on the part of the respondent to change the allotment arbitrarily. Resultantly the order dated December 6, 1989 is quashed not only with regard to the fixation of the enhanced price but also with regard to the allotement of the house which stood originally allotted in his name.

(7) WITH the above observation, the writ petitions are dispose of but with no order as to costs.