JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, & S.H.A. Raza, JJ. - In this Bunch of Writ Petitions the petitioners who got themselves registered for getting houses of different types to be constructed by the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad have challenged the increase in the prices by the U P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad even though possession of the houses to many of these persons has not been given and the houses are not complete and prices have been raised contrary to what they were told when they applied for registration. The petitioners have accordingly prayed for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad directing not to realise the increased cost and they be directed to complete the construction work and deliver possession of the same to those to whom it has not been delivered and they should also be directed to pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum of the money they had deposited beginning from the year 1987 or nearabout. 2. The U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, which is a statutory body, announced a Scheme known as 'Self Financing Scheme, 1985' sometimes in the month of October/November, 1984 providing houses to persons who were desirous of having the same. The scheme envisaged five types of houses viz. TypeI, TypeII, TypeIII, TypeIV and TypeV spreading all over Uttar Pradesh including Rae Bareli and Lucknow. Registration booklets were also provided to the petitioners which indicated the type of houses ; area of the land ; plinth area ; estimated costs of the house and registration fee etc. For the purpose of eligibility, it was provided that the allottee should not possess any other land or house allotted by the Board and Clause 7.5 of the Scheme provided that no interest shall be payable by the Board and in case any person is desirous of getting his money refunded after getting his registration cancelled, he would have to make a deduction to the extent of 20 per cent. The mode of payment, i. e. instalments, were also provided. In the booklet it was also provided that the house's were to be completed within two years from the last date of registration. 3. The mode of payment, i. e. instalments, were also provided. In the booklet it was also provided that the house's were to be completed within two years from the last date of registration. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though money was deposited but the Board delayed the construction work and the money of these middle income group persons was, thus, blocked. As houses were not allotted within a particular period, representations were made and subsequently the petitioners were informed that the houses had been allotted to them, but they were also required to pay additional amount ranging from Rs. 44,041/ to Rs. 84,936/ It has been stated that the cost 4f houses, which were initially fixed at Rs. 65.000/ was enhanced to Rs. 1,04,000/and odd to Rs. 1,35,000/ The petitioners' complaint is that this increase is arbitrary and has got no justification and the increase in price, which were now fixed, are without any reason and the Board, thus, has indulged in profiteering by requiring the petitioners to pay more. The opposite parties, thus, blocked their money by owing them an assurance that they would be given house within a particular period but within this period houses were not given to them which were not even complete and the middle income group, most of which are in service, have been made to suffer badly and the opposite parties instead of performing their legal obligation of constructing the houses and giving possession of the same, are now indulging in this unfair practice and have not only blocked their money but now they want to realise money illegally by imposing interest and depriving them of their hardearned money. 4. All these petitions have been opposed by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, which has filed counter affidavits. In the counter affidavits, reference to certain clauses mentioned in the booklet which were issued and given to all the applicants in pursuance of which they moved application, has been made and it has been stated that in view of the terms and conditions enumerated in the registration booklet which were in the nature of contract and it is not open for the petitioners, who got themselves registered in the Self Financing Scheme, to challenge the same. 5. Reference to certain clauses has been made in the counter affidavit. 6. Clause 1. 5. Reference to certain clauses has been made in the counter affidavit. 6. Clause 1. 3 of the terms and conditions provide that the costs of the houses mentioned is only approximate and the actual cost can either increase or decrease and the determination of cost would be fixed after completion of the construction of houses. This clause further provides that the approximate cost does not include the boundary wall, courtyard wall and steel gates. 7. Clause 1.4 provides that the size and area of the plots may differ from city to city and would depend upon the availability of the land. 8. Clause 7 provides Rules relating to the registration of the applicant under the Self Financing Scheme. 9. Clause 7.3 provides that the Parishad is not bound to allot a house under the Self Financing Scheme to every registered applicant and even if an applicant is not allotted house, he shall not be entitled to claim any damages from the Parishad. 10. Clause 7.5 provides that no interest shall be payable to the applicant upon the registration amount and in the event an applicant chooses to cancel his registration, then the Parishad will be entitled to deduct 20 per cent of the registration amount and the balance shall be refunded to the applicant without any interest. 11. Clause 8.1 provides that the cost which has been shown in respect of the five types of houses, namely, TypeI, TypeII, TypeIII, TypeIV and TypeV is approximate and the actual cost shall be that which would be determined after the completion of the construction of the house and which may either increase or decrease. The said Clause also provides the manner in which the instalments are to. be paid. It provides for the registration amount and then the first instalment will be paid within one month from the date of acceptance letter by the Parishad and thereafter four monthly instalments. It also provides that the difference of the actual cost of the house and the amount already deposited will be deposited after allotment but before obtaining possession. 12. Clause 8.2 provides that if the payment as mentioned'in Clause 8.1 is not made within the specified period, the applicant shall be liable to pay 18 per cent additional interest which shall be payable along with the instalments. 13. 12. Clause 8.2 provides that if the payment as mentioned'in Clause 8.1 is not made within the specified period, the applicant shall be liable to pay 18 per cent additional interest which shall be payable along with the instalments. 13. Clause 8.3 provides that if the instalments which are due are not paid along with 18 per cent interest even within six months thereafter, the registration shall automatically stand cancelled. 14. Clause 9,2 provides that there shall be no reservation of any nature in respect of any other type or class of the houses and all possible steps shall be taken by the Parishad to make available the houses to all the registered applicants and the allotment of houses shall be by draw of lots. It has further been provided in this Clause that allotment of houses shall be on 'as is where is' basis and after acceptance of the allotment no dispute shall be raised in respect of the quality of the property. 15. Clause 9.2 provides that under ordinary circumstances the allotment of the houses would be made within two years from the last date of registration but if on account of unavoidable circumstances, the constructions of the houses is delayed, the Parishad shall not be responsible and the Parishad shall not be liable to pay any interest on the amount deposited by the applicant. 16. Clause 9.6 provides that in the matters pertaining to registration and allotment, the decision of the Housing Commissioner shall be final who has the right to relax any of the terms and conditions mentioned in the Brochure. 17. A plea has been taken by the Parishad that it was expected that the house would be completed by December, 1986 and as provided in the Brochure, the last instalment was required to be paid within one month of the date of allotment or prior to the taking of possession, which ever was earlier and as such the Parishad was well with its right to claim the amount, The reasons for late constructions, as pleaded by the Parishad is that administrative sanction was granted by the Parishad no 21.5.1985 and thereafter revised administrative sanction was communicated vide order dated 14.2.1986. The technical sanction was accorded by the Executive Engineer, U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad on 11.4.1986 and necessary agreements for construction of houses were executed on 12.4.1986 and thereafter construction work commenced for Type IV houses. The allotment in respect of the houses was made to the registered allottees on 16.5.1987 and the first allotment letter was issued on 21.8.1987 and it was only on completion that it was found that the cost had gone up higher and that is why such demand was made and the reason for enhancement of price was on account of the spiraling in the prices of land, cement and steel, change of specification in civil work including plinth height, roof height, etc and also on account of mounting charges of water supply connections, sanitary fittings, installation of electric supply lines etc. The Parishad has tried to defend its action by saying that the Parishad obtains loans from Public Financial Institutions and the same has to be paid within a time schedule along with interest and that is why provision for the same has been made. 18. Similar matter came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bareilly Development Authority and another v. Ajay Pal Singh and others, (1989) 2 Supreme Court Cases 116. The High Court allowed the petitions but the order passed by the High Court was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was held: ...... 18. Similar matter came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bareilly Development Authority and another v. Ajay Pal Singh and others, (1989) 2 Supreme Court Cases 116. The High Court allowed the petitions but the order passed by the High Court was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was held: ...... It is clear that all the respondents who have sent their applications for registration with initial payment only after having fully understood the terms and conditions of the brochure inclusive of the Clauses 12 and 13 and the Notes 1 and 2 of the General Information Table as per which the DDA has reserved its right to change, enhance or amend any of the terms and/or conditions as and when felt necessary, and also the right to relax any of the conditions at its discretion, and that the cost shown in the column 4 of the brochure was only estimated cost subject to increase or decrease according to the rise or fall in the price at the time of completion of the property.....So it cannot be said that there was a misstatement or incorrect statement or any fraudulent concealment in the information supplied in the brochure published by the DDA on the strength of which all the applicants falling under the various categories applied and got their names registered. In such a circumstance the respondents cannot be heard to say that the DDA has arbitrarily and unreasonably changed the terms and conditions of the brochure to the prejudice of the respondents. It was further held: More so, the respondents barring respondents 13, 17, 18 and 20 after having given their written consent accepting the changed and varied terms and conditions as shown in the letter dated January, 19/20, 1984 are not justified in contending that the DDA has gone back on its original terms and conditions and has substituted new conditions to their detriment. The respondents were under no obligation to seek allotment of houses/flats even after they had registered themselves. The respondents were under no obligation to seek allotment of houses/flats even after they had registered themselves. Not withstanding, they voluntarily registered themselves as applicants, only after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the brochure inclusive of clauses 12 and 13 and Notes 1 and 2 of the General Information Table which we have reproduced above, they are now trying to obtain the houses/flats at the price indicated in the brochure at the initial stage conveniently ignoring the other express conditions by and under which the DDA has reserved its right to change the terms and conditions as and when felt necessary, evidently depending upon the escalation of the prices. One should not lose sight of the fact that the DDA did not compel anyone of the applicants to purchase the flat at the rates subsequently fixed by it and pay the increased monthly instalments. On the contrary, the option was left over only to the allottees. Thus the factual position in this case clearly and unambiguously reveals that the respondent after voluntarily accepting the conditions imposed by the DDA have entered into the realm of concluded contract pure and simple with DDA and hence the respondents can only claim the right conferred upon them by the said contract and are bound by the terms of the contract unless some statute steps in and confers some special statutory obligations on the part of the DDA in the contractual field. 19. It was further observed: ..........Even conceding that the DDA has the trappings of a State or would be comprehended in 'other authority' for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution, while determining price of the houses/flats constructed by it and the rate of monthly instalments to be paid, the 'authority' or its agent after entering into the field of ordinary contract acts purely in its executive capacity. Thereafter the relations are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions but by the legally valid contract which determines the rights and obligations of the parties inter se. In this sphere, they can only claim rights conferred upon them by the contract in the absence of any statutory obligations on the part of the authority (i. e. DDA in this case) in the said contractual field. 20. In this sphere, they can only claim rights conferred upon them by the contract in the absence of any statutory obligations on the part of the authority (i. e. DDA in this case) in the said contractual field. 20. The Court ultimately held that petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution in these contractual matters are not entertainable; these contracts are 'nonstatutory' and the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract and no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21. Practically the same position arises in these cases and with open eyes the petitioners applied for the allotment of houses in their favour knowing fully well the conditions for the same. Obviously, with the hope and expectation that their money will not be blocked and houses will be constructed within the period of two years and they will get possession of the same, many of them ventured to make arrangement for money or part away with it. The housing having not been constructed within the period of two years and the prices having been increased, they were required to pay more for which there was a provision in the contract itself. Had the petitioners known this in advance, many of them, if not all, would not have dared to get themselves registered for purchasing a house. The representation made by the State or its instrumentality is to be accepted by the subject, but the Statutory Corporation should not loose sight of the fact that due to delay in making of constructions by it, by the passage of time, the prices have escalated, compelling the aspirants to pay more and part away with more money. So far as the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad is concerned, for them the conditions were not stringent but for the applicants the conditions were stringent. Under the conditions, the Parishad had scope for deviating from the conditions which they represented to the petitioners and which they were obliged to respect, and though the petitioners were in weaker position as is with the case of Subject with the State, they were bound by the terms and conditions of the contract and it being a contractual matter, no writ petition is maintainable. As such, so far as challenge for escalation of price is concerned, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 22. As such, so far as challenge for escalation of price is concerned, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 22. In India, not only in rural areas but in urban areas problem of houses is very acute and that is why we find in big cities pavementdwellers, slumdwellers and persons taking shelter under publicroof or a projected private roof or even on streets. The Government instrumentalities, which were given birth in order to perform function of the Government, have started various schemes for providing to lowerincome group, middleincome group and higherincome group houses, the prices of which may be paid in lumpsum or in instalments. The brochure having been issued by the Avam Evam Vikas Parishad, it cannot be said that there was a promise by it, but obviously it could have been taken as a promise by the State or a Statutory Body and as such the principle of promissory estoppel may not apply, but the spirit of the same cannot be forgotten and the Subject are not to be denied the benefit of the same altogether by the State. One having no roof and finding himself not in a position to purchase one, as it may not be possible for him either to construct a house or purchase the same by making payment of money in lumpsum, agreed to have a house by paying the price for the same in instalments and for such a person the conditions were somewhat lucrative in nature and were accepted. The Avas Evam Vikas Parishad may have taken loan and it will have to pay interest but its position is better that a person belonging to lower or middle income group. However, it is not mentioned in the counter affidavit as to what was the time schedule within which the loan was to be paid and the rate of interest which the Parishad had to pay to the public financial institutions. Hence the condition contained in clause 8.2, which besides that if payment as mentioned in clause 8.1 is not made within the specified period, the applicant shall be liable to pay 18% additional interest which shall be payable alone in instalments is excessive, harsh and arbitrary, the same cannot be sustained and enforced. Hence the condition contained in clause 8.2, which besides that if payment as mentioned in clause 8.1 is not made within the specified period, the applicant shall be liable to pay 18% additional interest which shall be payable alone in instalments is excessive, harsh and arbitrary, the same cannot be sustained and enforced. In case the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad would have taken action expeditiously by giving sanctions and would have been vigilant and the sanction was obtained within time, then this position would not have arisen. If the house seekers are to suffer by paying interest and penalty, the Parishad cannot escape its responsibility for delay and will have to share the burden. In the brochure, one of the condition is that the Housing Commissioner has the power to relax some of the conditions and there appears to be no reason, that if the delay has been caused because of moving the official machinery in a particular manner, benefit of such relaxation must be given to house seekers. Calculating two years from the date of registration, if the house could not be built, the house seekers cannot be blamed hence they cannot be asked or required to pay interest or penalty at the rate of 18%. The default of the weaker persons, having several responsibilities and commitments is not to be viewed very strictly, and they are entitled for relaxation. Those who are clear defaulter and despite the fact that they got possession of the house and yet committed default without any explanation, obviously, may not be at the par. 23. We are of the view that in view of the fact that the initial responsibility is on the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, the relaxation clause should be exercised by the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad in favour of house seekers in the matter of interest and penalty. 24. As the Parishad itself was also responsible for the delay in the constructions of houses, for some reason or the other, in all fairness, it should return the amount, in case any person is desirous of getting his registration cancelled but the condition mentioned in clause 7. 5 that no interest shall be payable to the applicant upon the registration amount and Parishad shall be entitled to deduct, 20% of the registration amount is too harsh, excessive and should not be enforced. 5 that no interest shall be payable to the applicant upon the registration amount and Parishad shall be entitled to deduct, 20% of the registration amount is too harsh, excessive and should not be enforced. The house seekers had deposited their hard earned money on the assurance that they will be allotted houses after two years. Their money if not deposited at the time of registration must have earned interest in bank and it was blocked for no fault of their own. Hence in case the petitioners choose to cancel their registration due to delay in the construction of house, as a result of which the cost of constructions skyrocketed, the Avas Vikas Parishad, U.P. will return the entire amount deposited by the petitioner to them alongwith an interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 25. So far as coercive measures are concerned for which the contract does not make any provision, though under law such action can be taken, but it is not necessary that it should be resorted to without taking into consideration the delay caused by the Avas Vikas Parishad and the rise in the price of which responsibility could not be of the common man. In case it is decided to realise money as arrears of land revenue, may it be by reducing the same, the defaulters should be put on their ground and they should be apprised of the proposed action which is to be taken after giving them opportunity to set the matter right. 26. With these observations, the writ petitions are dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, parties will bear their own cost.