CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an allottee of a house constructed by the 1st respondent-Housing board. House so allotted to him is situated in Belgaum City. Applications were invited from the public by notification dated nil published in 'samyukta Karnataka' dated 3-6- 1978 by which the respondent- Housing board called upon the economically weaker section to apply in the prescribed form and manner subject to the conditions set out in the conditions for allotment of houses which the Board proposed to construct. The petitioner was one of the applicants under the Notification. ( 2 ) BY intimation dated 17-11-1980, he was informed that house to be constructed at malamaruthi area, Belgaum City, has been allotted to him, on site measuring 45' x 60'. The value of the house is estimated at 'rs. 42,000/ -. On 26-3-1983, one more intimation was sent to the petitioner by which he was informed that the house is ready and the provisional cost fixed was Rs. 59,406-00 and so the extra cost of Rs. 17,406/- over the cost earlier notified could have to be paid by the petitioner in five instalments. The intimation also directed that he should sign an agreement of lease-cum-sale before he is put in possession of the house. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to that intimation of allotment, true copy of which is produced at Annexure-C, the petitioner executed an agreement on 4th August 1983 in favour of the respondent-Housing Board. Clause-6 of the agreement shows that the cost of the property was provisionally fixed at Rs. 59,506/ -. By clause 7 of the Agreement, he further agreed that final cost of the property will be as fixed by the Board. ( 4 ) NOW whatever may be the compelling reasons, in 1987, the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the constitution seeking an order or a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Annexure-C the intimation of allotment which provided for fixing the provisional cost at Rs. 59,406/- interalia contending that it is arbitrary and therefore liable to be quashed. ( 5 ) THIS court under Article 226 of the constitution, will not grant such relief. The respondent-Housing Board, though a State within the meaning of the expression under article 12, is competent to contract with others. 59,406/- interalia contending that it is arbitrary and therefore liable to be quashed. ( 5 ) THIS court under Article 226 of the constitution, will not grant such relief. The respondent-Housing Board, though a State within the meaning of the expression under article 12, is competent to contract with others. Pursuant to that power which it has by virtue of its Constitution under the relevant Statute, it has contracted with the petitioner to supply him with a house at a given place in November 1980 in accordance with the conditions stipulated pursuant to which Annexure-C came to be issued allotting House No. 5 in that particular area to the petitioner and after getting agreement as at annexure-E signed by him, he was allotted the same. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the same undisturbed so far. He cannot now come forward after taking possession to question the authority of the board to raise the cost now that he finds himself unable to pay the escalated cost. Power or Jurisdiction exercised by this court under Article 226 is not to set at nought measures for the benefit of down trodden, weaker section of the society. ( 6 ) WHATEVER legal rights the petitioner has to question the escalation, it has available to him in 1983 on receipt of the intimation of allotment, Annexure-C. Had he challenged the escalation that, this court might have entertained the challenge and called upon the respondent Board to account for the escalation. Not having done that, be executed the lease-cum-sale as at Annexure-E agreeing to the provisional cost of Rs. 59,406/- and further surrendering the right in favour of the Board to fix the final cost of the house, the petitioner cannot now invoke Article 226. He has neither constitutional right nor legal right on which he may found his relief. According to him if he has any legal right then he should work out his legal remedy in a Civil court. ( 7 ) IN this view, this writ petition is not maintainable and is therefore rejected. Writ petition rejected. --- *** --- .