CHARANJIT TALWAR ( 1 ) KALYAN Samiti, Nimri Colony, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and ten of its members have filed this writ petition against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (herein called the Corporation ), its Commissioner and the Delhi Administration, seeking, inter alia, that the quarters built by the first respondent in Nimri Municipal Colony under the low income group housing scheme, be sold to them. The membership of the society, petitioner No. 1 herein, is open only to the employees of the Corporation. The Nimri Municipal Colony (hereinafter called the Colony ) was built by the Corporation after taking loan granted by the Delhi Administration under the scheme "low Income Group Housing Scheme". A copy of that scheme has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P9. The scope of the Scheme is given in Cl. 2 thereof and reads as under :-- "2. Scope of the Scheme. Aid under this scheme is envisaged primarily for persons who do not already own a house and whose income does not exceed Rs. 6,000. 00 per annum. There will, however, be no objection to State Government advancing a loan to an individual even if he owned a house already, provided that the additional house is needed for his bona fide residential purposes. " ( 2 ) UNDER cl. 8 the Scheme provides for assistance to local bodies. It is relevant to quote that clause as it has a bearing on the decision of this case. It reads : "8. Assistance to Local Bodies. Loans on the same terms as in para 3 (a) will also be made available by the Government of India to the State Government for disbursement to local bodies for housing their low paid staff. Loan assistance in this case will, however, be limited to 80 per cent of the actual cost of the house including land subject to a maximum of Rs. 2,800. 00. In other words, the State Government or the local bodies will have to find the remaining 20 per cent of the cost from their own resources. The ownership of these houses will vest with the local bodies which may rent them out to their low paid staff. The local bodies are, however, free to sell these houses outright or on a hire purchase basis to their low paid staff. " (emphasis added ). The ownership of these houses will vest with the local bodies which may rent them out to their low paid staff. The local bodies are, however, free to sell these houses outright or on a hire purchase basis to their low paid staff. " (emphasis added ). ( 3 ) IT was under this provision that loan was sanctioned to the local body, i. e. the Corporation for constructing the quarters. In the first instance the Delhi Administration sanctioned a loan of rupees seven lacs. The terms and conditions of the loan are contained in Annexure 1. The first condition mentioned therein is " (a) that not. more than 25% of the houses constructed under the scheme will be allotted to the employees of the Corporation. The remaining 75% will be sold (either out right or on hire purchase basis) or let out on a no profit no loss basis to the persons (other than employees of the Corporation) eligible for benefits under the Scheme". It is the admitted case of the parties before me that the Government of India on a reference made by the Lt. Governor, Delhi, agreed to increase the allotment to the employees from 25% to 50% in the Colony. The remaining 50% of the houses in the Colony were sold to others who were eligible under the Scheme on no profit no loss basis. ( 4 ) FROM the record it appears that under the Scheme in all 640 houses were built although the loan sanctioned was for 648 houses. Out of the said houses, 324 were allotted to the members of petitioner No. 1 from the year 1965 onwards. It appears that since then the society and its members are agitating that those houses be sold to them at no profit no loss basis as has been done in the case of the remaining 50 per cent of the houses. ( 5 ) THE Corporation in fact passed a resolution on 4th Dec. , 1970, to sell the houses to the allottees at no profit no loss basis. The said resolution bearing No. 868 reads as follows : "this Special Meeting of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi resolves that the municipal accommodation allotted to the municipal employees at Nimri, Azadpur, Malkaganj, Dhaka etc. , 1970, to sell the houses to the allottees at no profit no loss basis. The said resolution bearing No. 868 reads as follows : "this Special Meeting of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi resolves that the municipal accommodation allotted to the municipal employees at Nimri, Azadpur, Malkaganj, Dhaka etc. be sold to the allottees on "no profit no loss basis", and the allottees be charged @ 30% of the assessed cost of the premises in the first instance and the balance in easy instalments spread over a period of seven years. This facility be given only to those municipal employees, who do not own any house within Delhi in their own name or in the name of any member of their family. " ( 6 ) THIS resolution has been extracted from Annexure IV which is a copy of minutes of the Special Meeting of the Corporation held on Friday, the 4th Dec. , 1970. There is no controversy that the said resolution was passed. In the writ petition the petitioners herein seek that as per the above resolution the respondents be directed to sell the houses. However, the case of the respondents in their counteraffidavit is that the said resolution was in contravention of S. 200 (d) of the Corporation Act. Another objection was also raised by the legal adviser and also by the Municipal Chief Auditor regarding the validity of the resolution. It is not necessary to deal with the second objection as now that objection had been given up. ( 7 ) IT is relevant to notice the section of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. It reads as "200. With respect to the disposal of property belonging to the Corporation, the following provision shall have effect namely : (A) to (c) - - (D) the consideration for which any immovable property may be sold, leased or otherwise transferred shall not be less than the value at which such immovable property could be sold, leased, or otherwise transferred in normal and fair competition;" ( 8 ) BECAUSE of the objection raised, the Corporation reconsidered the matter in its resolution dt. 25th April, 1972. A copy of that resolution has been filed as Annexure P5. 25th April, 1972. A copy of that resolution has been filed as Annexure P5. By this resolution numbered as 13 it was however resolved "that the Corporation reiterates its previoas decision regarding transfer of ownership rights of staff quaners as contained in its Resolution No. 868 dated 4-12-1970. " ( 9 ) IT appears that the matter was re-agitated and thereafter another resolution was passed modifying the earlier resolution. It was decided by the Corporation to sell the property at the market rate. It is not necessary to refer to that resolution and some other resolutions passed during the pendency of the writ petition as now the Corporation by its resolution No. 924 dated15th Feb. , 1984, has "resolved that having considered the position brought out by the Commissioner in his letter No. F. 33/lande/7702 /candc dt. 17-11-1983 the recommendation made by the Standing Committee vide its Resolution No. 872 dt. 23-12-1983, the municipal quarters at Nimri Colony be sold to the present allottees/authorised occupants of these quarters on the market value of 1974 which has already been calculated in the case of eleven quarters of Nimri Colony sold to unauthorised occupants and on the same terms and conditions as confined in Corporation s Resolution No. 937 dt. 9-2-1979. " ( 10 ) IT is obvious that the Corporation has passed the above resolution fixing the market value of the quarters in question as it existed in the year 1974 not only to meet the objection raised as per the provisions of S. 200 (d) of the Act but also in view of the fact that in that very year 11 quarters in that colony were sold to unauthorised occupants. The price paid by those occupants has to be charged vide this resolution from the petitioners and other members of the Society who were allotted those quarters as they are employees of the Corporation. ( 11 ) IN view of this unambiguous resolution there cannot be any doubt that the price fixed is the fair market price. It is open to the Corporation, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to have fixed the market value prevailing in the year 1974 in view of the fact that some of the quarters in that Colony were sold in that year. ( 12 ) BUT this is not the end of the matter. It is open to the Corporation, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to have fixed the market value prevailing in the year 1974 in view of the fact that some of the quarters in that Colony were sold in that year. ( 12 ) BUT this is not the end of the matter. The Corporation has filed an affidavit suggesting that the latest resolution passed is not valid. The affidavit has been sworn by one Shri R. S. Mathur, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In para 10 of the affidavit it has been averred, "in view of the fact that the earlier resolution directing the sale of the Municipal quarters without complying with the provisions of S. 200 (d) of the Act had been declared to be invalid, a reference was made again to the Lt. Governor through the Secretary, Local Self Government, Delhi Administration, under S. 487 of the Act. The validity and the vires of the Resolution will depend upon the decision of the Central Government under S. 487 of the Act. " ( 13 ) THE above averment has been made by Shri R. S. Mathur, it appears to me, on his own authority and in his individual capacity. In. the affidavit he does not say that he is swearing this affidavit on behalf of the respondents, although the heading of the affidavit is "additional Affidavit on behalf of Respondent". The authority under which he has filed this affidavit has not been stated. Be that as it may, the recommendation to the Secretary, Local Self Government, to place the matter before the Lt. Governor who as the Administrator of the Union Territory is the Central Government under S. 487 of the Act, cannot be deemed to have any effect whatsoever on the resolution passed. It is no doubt true that the Central Government has the jurisdiction to give a direction to the Corporation in certain circumstances to "make arrangement to its satisfaction for the proper performance of the duty" yet the recommendation of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, assuming for a moment that it is the recommendation of the Commissioner of the Corporation, cannot by itself make the Corporation to stay its hand. ( 14 ) MR. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, has produced for my perusal a copy of the letter dt. 7th Dec. ( 14 ) MR. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, has produced for my perusal a copy of the letter dt. 7th Dec. , 1984, which was written by the Deputy Commissioner to the Secretary, Local Self Government, Delhi Administration, Delhi seeking that resolution No. 924 passed on 15th Feb. , 1984, by the Corporation maybe declared null and void. It reads as follows : "sub : Transfer of ownership rights of Municipal quarter on "no profit No Loss Basis". Sir, Please refer to your letter No. F. 2 (18)72- LSG/f. 50 (50)LSG-73, dt. 25-4-74 on the subject. The Corporation has again passed Resolution No. 924 on 15-2-84 resolving that having considered the position brought out by the Commissioner in his letter No. F. 33/lande Rs 7702/candc dt. 17-11-83 and the recommendation made by the Stpnding Committee vide its Resolution No. 872 dt. 23-12-1983, the municipal quarters at Nimri Colony be sold to the present allottees/ authorised occupants of these quarters on the market value of 1974 which has already been calculated in the case of eleven quarters of Nimri Colony sold to unauthorised occupants and on the same terms and conditions as contained in Corporation s Resolution No. 937 dt. 9-2-1979. 2. The case is already in the High Court and fixed for hearing on 12-12-1984 on the writ filed by the Lok Kalyan Samiti against the MCD for implementation of the previous resolution/decision which was rescinded on 23-7-1980. It is requested that thelatest Resolution No. 924 dt. 15-2-1984 passed by the Corporation may also be declared null and void accordingly so that no adverse inference is drawn by the Hon ble High Court againsit MCD", (emphasis added ). ( 15 ) A bare reading of the letter shows that no grounds have been made out except for the fact that if the latest resolution is not declared null and void, "adverse inference" would be drawn by the High Court against the Corporation. ( 16 ) IN my view this ground is perverse. It appears that the Corporation has done its duty and in all fairness passed the resolution in accordance with the decision which it had taken as far back as in the year 1970. ( 16 ) IN my view this ground is perverse. It appears that the Corporation has done its duty and in all fairness passed the resolution in accordance with the decision which it had taken as far back as in the year 1970. The resolution passed during the pendency of the writ petition ought not to have been sought to be declared null and void just because it is likely to go in favour of the petitioners. The reason averred in the affidavit is not mentioned in the letter. That reason, given in para 10 of the affidavit, seems to be non-existent. I may note here that Mr. Gupta in view of the latest resolution has given up the claim in the petition that houses be sold to the petitioners on "no profit no loss basis" and, I think, rightly so. The fair market price has been indicated in the resolution. In the year 1974 the price has been indicated in the resolution unauthorised occupants of the quarters in the Colony can by no stretch of imagination be said to be unfair. It appears to me that the recommendation contained in the letter of 7th Dec. , 1984, which has been quoted above, has been made solely with the purpose that no adverse remarks are passed against the Corporation. In all fairness to Mr. Arun Kumar, counsel for the respondents, he showed me a copy of the letter on my insistence. After going through the same I am refraining from passing any adverse remarks against the officer who has written that letter or the officer who has sworn the affidavit. But I hold that the reason stated in para 10 of the affidavit is nonexistent and the reason stated in the letter in question is entirely misconceived. ( 17 ) MR. G. D. Gupta has brought to my notice that from the unauthorised occupants of the quarters in the Colony the Corporation had decided to charge interest on the total cost of the quarter, namely, Rs. 24322. 46, at the rate of 11 per cent per annum. He says that obviously the market value in that year of one quarter was Rs. 24322. 46. The submission is that the petitioners are not liable to pay interest as they are all allottees authorised occupants. 24322. 46, at the rate of 11 per cent per annum. He says that obviously the market value in that year of one quarter was Rs. 24322. 46. The submission is that the petitioners are not liable to pay interest as they are all allottees authorised occupants. It is the admitted case of the parties that petitioners and other members of the petitioner-society who were allotted quarters have been paying monthly rent as per rules of the Corporation. The reference to the terms and conditions in Resolution No. 924 passed by the Corporation and to the Resolution No. 937 passed on 9th Feb. , 1979, specifically referred to, and was passed for the benefit of unauthorised occupants laying down that those occupants had to pay market value existing in 1974 "plus interest up to date at the rate of 11% per annum". The further term was that the offer to be made was open only to those who were ready to pay the first instalment within a period of four months from the date of offer. In the resolution, which is applicable to the petitioners herein, it is stated that the quarters are to be sold on the market value of 1974. 1 agree with Mr. Gupta that the reference is only to the value of the quarters and not to the interest which the unauthorised occupants had to pay. The only term which can be made applicable to the petitioners is that the offer to sell the quarters is open only to those of them who pay the first instalment within a period of four months from the date of offer. I hold accordingly, 1 direct that the resolution dated 15th Feb. , 1984, be acted upon without any delay. ( 18 ) THE result is that the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 550. 00.