JUDGMENT : M.L. Bhat, J. The Petitioner has applied for grant of a writ of certiorari to quash the letter dated 11-2-1991 (Annexure 15 to the writ petition) by which he was asked to deposit Rs.3,38,378/- by 25-2-1991 failing which the allotment of plot in his favour was to be cancelled and amount of Rs.2,225/- by Bank draft towards the price of the plot was returned to the Petitioner. The Petitioner also prays for a writ of mandamus restraining the Respondent from cancelling the allotment of plot No. A-4 Raj Nagar District Centre, Ghazlabad and further restraining the Respondent from reauctioning the same. By a further writ of mandamus the Petitioner prays that the Respondent be directed to deliver possession of the said plot and execute the lease deed of the said plot in favour of the Petitioner. 2. The facts of the case, lie in a very brief compass. A commercial plot No. A-4, Raj Nagar District Centre Ghuziabad was auctioned. The Petitioner also participated in the auction. A brochure was also issued by the Respondent, which contained the conditions of the auction. The main conditions of the auction were as under (i) The participant had to deposit Rs.10,000/- to be enable to take part in the auction; (ii) The highest bidder was to pay 25% of the bid amount at the fall of the hammer either in cash or through Bank Draft; (iii) The size of the plot which was auctioned was approximate. Its size could vary upto 15% either way subject, of course, to the proportionate increase or decrease of the total costs depending upon the percentage of variation of the cost. The balance amount bad to be paid within 15 days of the acceptance of the bid. (iv) On delayed payments interest at the rate of 15% per annum was chargeable; (v) After payment of full amount of premium the possession of the plot was to be delivered and lease deed executed within six months from the date of allotment. A true copy of the brochure is placed on record by the Petitioner as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, which is admitted by the other side. 3. Prior to the date of auction it was given out that the size of the plot would be 3730 sq. meteRs.The publication in this regard is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. 4. 3. Prior to the date of auction it was given out that the size of the plot would be 3730 sq. meteRs.The publication in this regard is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. 4. On 18-8-1988 the Petitioner is said to have received a letter informing him that his bid for the plot for a consideration of Rs.46,52,000/- has been accepted. There was a note in the letter that the Petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs.11,65,625/- being 25% of the total amount. The letter required the Petitioner to deposit the balance sum of Rs.34,96,875/- within sixty days of the issuance of the letter. A copy of this letter is placed on record as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The Petitioner’s case is that the rate of the land was Rs.1250/- per sq-meter, which is reflected by the allotment letter also. 5. At the time of auction of the plot, it appears that there was a dispute regarding the plot in question between the Respondent and one D.S. Agarwal, & Company. A writ petition was pending in this Court, which was registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6900 (C) of 1986. The auction of the plot had taken place but the Respondent had not accepted the highest bid of the bidder D.S. Agarwal & Company. By an interim order a Division Bench of this Court on 19-8-1986 ordered that the allotment of the plot No. A-4 Raj Nagar, Ghazlabad shall be subject to the orders which would be passed in that writ petition. However, that writ petition was ultimately dismissed by Division Bench of this Court on 21-12-1988. The Respondent did not hand over the possession to the Petitioner because on the date of auction the aforesaid writ petition was pending. The plot became free and capable of being delivered only on 21-12-1988 However, the Respondent made a demand from the Petitioner to pay the balance amount, as Indicated above. 6. After the auction had taken place and after the demand was made by the Respondent for payment of the balance amount it seems that the area of the plot was reduced from 3700 sq. meters to 3000 sq. meteRs.The demand made by the Respondent for the balance amount on the basis of the size of the plot initially being 3730 sq. meters, therefore, was not proper and was bad in law. 7. meters to 3000 sq. meteRs.The demand made by the Respondent for the balance amount on the basis of the size of the plot initially being 3730 sq. meters, therefore, was not proper and was bad in law. 7. On 31-3-1989 the Petitioner is said to have made a request to the Respondent to reduce the bid amount proportionately and not to insist upon the demand which it was making. The Petitioner says that he was ready and willing to deposit the balance amount of the plot which was now only of 3000 sq. meters size. A copy of this letter is annexed by the Petitioner as Annexure 4 to the writ petition The Respondent seems to have made again a demand by letter dated 6-4-1989 in respect of the amount, which was determined by it on the basis of the original size of the plot being 3730 sq. meters and which was more than Rs.46,00.000/-. This demand is said to be unreasonable because the size of the plot by the time of issuance of the letter dated 6-4-1989 had already been reduced to 3000 sq meteRs.A copy of this letter is placed on record as Annexures-5 to the writ petition. The Petitioner is said to have protested again to the Respondent by his letter dated 22-4-1989 (Annexures-6 to the writ petition) about the true position of the size of the plot and about the unreasonable demand of the Respondent with regard to the price of the plot. The Petitioner is said to have sent reminders to the Respondent about the delivery of possession and about the execution of lease deed, which are Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition. 8. The Petitioner is said to have deposited by means of three separate Bank drafts of Rs.25,84,375/- on 27-4-1989. The Respondent seems to have become reluctant and had determined the costs of the plot after receipt of the aforesaid amount to be Rs.37,52,225/-. The Petitioner had already deposited Rs.37,50,000/- on two occasions 25% at the time of the fall of the hammer and Rs.25,84,375/- on 27-4-1989. Therefore, according to the calculation the balance of Rs.2,225/- was payable by the Petitioner to the Respondent towards the price of the plot. The Petitioner had already deposited Rs.37,50,000/- on two occasions 25% at the time of the fall of the hammer and Rs.25,84,375/- on 27-4-1989. Therefore, according to the calculation the balance of Rs.2,225/- was payable by the Petitioner to the Respondent towards the price of the plot. The Respondent is said to have called upon the Petitioner to deposit the balance amount of Rs.2,225/- and lease rent of Rs.1,25,074.20 by 15-4-1990 by a letter dated 26-3-1990, a copy of which is Annexure 9 to the writ petition. In this letter the amount paid by the Petitioner was acknowledged by the Respondent and a demand for payment of further amount, as given above, was made. Nothing was said in this letter about the payment of interest for the alleged delayed payments. The Respondent, contends the Petitioner, was therefore estopped from demanding any sum except the sum shown in Annexure 9 to the writ petition or any interest on the delayed payments, The Petitioner is said to have remitted Rs.2,225/- and Rs.1,25,074.20 through Bank draft on 12-4-1990 well within time. The Petitioner requested the Respondent to deliver possession of the plot to him and execute the lease deed. A copy of this letter is Annexure 10 to the writ petition. The Respondent did not take any steps after the receipt of the amount and after the receipt of the letter from the Petitioner. The Petitioner, therefore, is said to have addressed reminders to the Respondent, copies whereof are placed on record as Annexures-11, 12 and 13 to the writ petition. 9. The Respondent is said to have ignored all the requests of the Petitioner and failed to deliver possession of the plot to the Petitioner or execute lease deed in his favour. The Petitioner thereafter is said to have addressed a letter on 1-11-1990 to the Respondent asking it to do the needful and holding it liable to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the money deposited by the Petitioner with the Respondent. A copy of this letter is placed on record as Annexure 14 to the writ petition. Thereafter the Respondent seems to have woken up from slumber and issued the impugned letter and returned the Bank draft of Rs.2,225/- to the Petitioner and demanded payment of interest to be paid by 25-2-1991. 10. A copy of this letter is placed on record as Annexure 14 to the writ petition. Thereafter the Respondent seems to have woken up from slumber and issued the impugned letter and returned the Bank draft of Rs.2,225/- to the Petitioner and demanded payment of interest to be paid by 25-2-1991. 10. The Petitioner has challenged the action of the Respondent as being manifestly unjust and illegal. The Petitioner states that as on 26-3-1990 the Respondent had made a demand of the amount which did not include the amount of interest and asked the Petitioner to deposit the same on or before 15-4-1990. The Petitioner deposited the amount asked for on 12 5-1990 well within time and thereafter the Respondent could not make any demand for payment of interest. The demand of the Respondent is said to be unscrupulous and arbitrary. It is contended that the Respondent is obliged to deliver the possession of the plot to the Petitioner and is bound to execute lease deed in his favour. 11. On behalf of the Respondent a counter affidavit is filed by a Clerk in the office of the Respondent, who seems to have deposed some paras on the basis of perusal of papers and other paras on the basis of information received but no para of the counter affidavit is based on record of the Respondent maintained by him in due discharge of his duties. The counter affidavit filed by the Respondent makes an interesting reading. It is admitted that the Petitioner’s bid was accepted, It is, however, stated that the Petitioner has failed to deposit the amount within the required period and applied for extension of time to deposit the balance amount The time is said to have been allowed by the Respondent to the Petitioner initially upto 29-11-3988 and on second occasion upto 31-5-1989. Time was extended finally upto 30-4-1989. However, the Petitioner was asked to pay penal interest for the extended period of time. The Petitioner is said to have deposited Rs.25,84,375/- only on 27-4-89. He is said to have been in arrears to the tune of Rs.2,54,419/- by way of premium and he was to pay penal interest plus the lease rent of Rs.1,25,074 20 for 30 years Therefore, the lease deed was not executed in his favour. It is also admitted that initially 3,700 sq. He is said to have been in arrears to the tune of Rs.2,54,419/- by way of premium and he was to pay penal interest plus the lease rent of Rs.1,25,074 20 for 30 years Therefore, the lease deed was not executed in his favour. It is also admitted that initially 3,700 sq. meters covered area was to be given to the Petitioner by the Respondent but subsequently this area was reduced to 3001.78 sq. meters and the price of the area was also proportionately reduced. The reduction of the area is subsequent event and on the basis of the reduced area, the price of the plot was determined. The Respondent is said to have insisted on the payment being made according to the rules, which permit the Respondent to demand premium, penal interest and lease rent etc. The Respondent also admitted that the Bank draft for lease rent was accepted. However, the Bank draft for Rs.2,225/- was returned as it did not cover the entire amount, which was Rs.3,38,378/- as premium and penal interest. Other assertions made by the Petitioner are denied. However, issuance of the leuer dated 26-3-1990 contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition is admitted and the contents of the said letter are not denied. 12. A rejoinder affidavit is also filed by the Petitioner. It has controverted the assertions made by the Respondent. The action of the Respondent is said to be arbitrary and whimsical and the claim of the Respondent is said to be uncalled for. 13. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. The pleadings of the parties are complete. Therefore, at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties and in accordance with the Rules of the Court, we decide this petition finally. 14. Both sides have relied on the brochure which is issued by the Respondent before the plot was to be auctioned. It contains the conditions for auction. Mr. Ravi Kant submitted that no lease deed was executed, therefore, under Clause 3(iv) of the brochure no interest can be claimed by the Respondent on delayed payment. 14. Both sides have relied on the brochure which is issued by the Respondent before the plot was to be auctioned. It contains the conditions for auction. Mr. Ravi Kant submitted that no lease deed was executed, therefore, under Clause 3(iv) of the brochure no interest can be claimed by the Respondent on delayed payment. He also submitted that there was no delay in making payment because under Clause 2(vii) the Respondent had an authority to vary the area of the plot upto 15% subject of course to proportionate increase or decrease of auction sale price for the purpose of payments or refunds, as the case may be. As soon as the area was reduced and she cost was determined a demand was made to the Petitioner for making payment of the reduced area by 15-4-1990 and the Petitioner promptly made the payment. The earlier demand of the Respondent with regard to the price of the plot, which was determined on the basis of its size being 3730 sq. meters was not a correct demand as the amount of Rs.46,52,000/- was not the price of the plot, which was allotted to the Petitioner. Therefore, the demand made by the Respondent earlier cannot be said to be a valid demand in law. 15. As to whether the Petitioner was liable to pay interest on belated payments is a matter, which would not need our consideration in this judgment because in our opinion there has been no delay in making the payment on the part of the Petitioner. It was argued that interest can be claimed only when it is payable under the contract of lease However, that question pales into insignificance because on the basis of some admitted facts there is no delay on the part of the Petitioner in making the payment. 16. It is admitted that the Petitioner had deposited initially a sum of Rs.11,65,625/- as required under the conditions of the auction. This was one-fourth of the amount, which was determined on the basis of the plot being 3730 sq. mete Rs. The Petitioner was to pay the balance amount within sixty days. The Petitioner has not paid the balance within sixty days and he was granted extension of time thrice by the Respondent in making the payment. Therefore, the delay which had occasioned at one stage in making payment was condoned by the Respondent. mete Rs. The Petitioner was to pay the balance amount within sixty days. The Petitioner has not paid the balance within sixty days and he was granted extension of time thrice by the Respondent in making the payment. Therefore, the delay which had occasioned at one stage in making payment was condoned by the Respondent. It is not borne out from the record that the Respondent had extended the time for making the payment on the condition that the Petitioner will pay penal interest. This is an assertion made by the Respondent in despair. No record is placed before us to substantiate this assertion and if it is stated in the affidavit, It is not known as to on what basis assertion has been made. Therefore, we do not accept the assertion that the Petitioner was granted extension of time in making the deposit on the condition of paying the penal interest on the belated payments. 17. However, there is another aspect of the matter which is of utmost importance. The area of the plot was reduced to 3000 sq. meters so its cost was determined much after the bid had taken place. On the basis of the reduced area the total price of the plot was Rs.37,52,225/- and the Petitioner had to pay lease rent also. The Petitioner had paid Rs.37.50,000/- towards the cost price, which is accepted and acknowledged by the Respondent on 26 -3-1990 i.e. about after one year and seven months from the date of the auction. The Petitioner is asked to make the payment of Rs.2.225/- and pay the lease rent in addition to it. The time allowed to the Petitioner was upto 15-4-90 in this letter, which is accepted and admitted to be true by the Respondent. Nothing is said about the claim of interest on the belated payments. The omission to mention interest in this letter seems to be based on well-founded reasons. The price of the plot was determined much after and the original price of Rs.46.52,000/- was altered by the Respondent because there was corresponding reduction in the size of the plot. After determination of the price a demand could be made from the Petitioner for payment of the balance amount. He had already made the payments to the tune of Rs.37 50.000/- upto 27-4-1989. After determination of the price a demand could be made from the Petitioner for payment of the balance amount. He had already made the payments to the tune of Rs.37 50.000/- upto 27-4-1989. A meagre sum of Rs.2,225/- was outstanding against him He was asked to pay that amount on 26-3 1990 along with the lease rent. He deposited the amount by Bank draft within time but the same was returned to him. The return of this amount seems to be arbitrary, whimsical and unreasonable. The Respondent seems to have approbated and reprobated in the same breath. It has made a demand for definite and certain amount by its letter dated 26-3-1990 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition). It cannot, thereafter, turn round and refuse to execute the lease deed or deliver possession of the plot to the Petitioner on the pretext that the Petitioner has to pay interest on the belated payments. If the Respondent itself has delayed the determination of the price of the plot, how could it accuse the Petitioner of making delayed payment. The price initially fixed cannot be taken the real price of the plot because that was basted on the area of the plot being 3730 sq mete Rs. That area of the plot had undergone a change. The change was brought about by the Respondent. The Respondent under Clause 2(vii) of the brochure was found to reduce the cost of the plot by proportion and then make a demand to the Petitioner for payment of the price on the basis of the size of the plot which was to be delivered to him It could not insist on making payment on the basis of the original size of the plot which was considerably reduced. Therefore, the real demand, which could be made by the Respondent was only after the size of the plot was fixed and its price was determined proportionately The Petitioner was not obliged to pay the cost of 3730 sq meters because that was not the size of the plot Therefore, any demand made of that size will not be valid in the eyes of law. The demand for payment of price would be for 3001.78 sq. meters, which was fixed by the Respondent and was to be delivered to the Petitioner. The demand for payment of price would be for 3001.78 sq. meters, which was fixed by the Respondent and was to be delivered to the Petitioner. Before the fixation of its price the Petitioner had already deposited the substantial amount, which was deficit by only Rs.2,225/-. When he was asked to pay that amount by 15-4-1990 along with lease rent he at once deposited the same through Bank draft. The lease rent was accepted but the balance amount of Rs.2,225/- was returned on the ground that it does not represent the total amount. This action of the Respondent seems to be unwarranted, arbitrary and against the record The Respondent should not have returned the amount nor made any demand for interest. Its case was that the Petitioner was liable to pay only a certain and definite amount which was mentioned in Annexure 9 to the writ petition. After having mentioned the definite amount in Annexure 9 the Respondent could not have resiled from its stand in violation of its own norms and condition fixed by it. 18. The learned Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Shitla Prasad argued that the matter was contractual, therefore, no relief could be granted to the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution. He placed reliance on the case of Bareilly Development Authority and Another Vs. Ajay Pal Singh and Others, (1989) 2 SCC 116 , wherein the Supreme Court has said that: When the contract entered into by the State is non-statutory and purely contractual 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, the parties can only claim rights conferred upon them by the contract in the absence of any statutory obligations on the part of the authority in the said contractual field. It is also settled that no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple. 19. In the above case the Bareilly Development Authority seems to have faced acute housing problem in the district had undertaken construction of dwelling units for people belonging to different income groups. A brochure was issued by the Bareilly Development Authority to the intending purchasers congaing general terms and the estimated costs of dwelling houses. 19. In the above case the Bareilly Development Authority seems to have faced acute housing problem in the district had undertaken construction of dwelling units for people belonging to different income groups. A brochure was issued by the Bareilly Development Authority to the intending purchasers congaing general terms and the estimated costs of dwelling houses. The not given in the said brochure clearly stated that the cost shown therein was only estimated cost and it would increase or decrease according to the rise or fall in the price at the time of completion of the houses/flats. Many persons got themselves registered for allotment of flats/houses. A notice was subsequently issued by the Development Authority increasing the price of houses, the amount of installment and interest. The allottees were asked to send their written acceptance of the revised price/installments to the Development Authority Most of the allottees, except few, gave unequivocal and unconditional written consent. Some of the allottes. however, challenged the revised terms and conditions of the Bareilly Development Authority on the ground that the Development Authority was estopped from changing the conditions' subject to which the allottees had applied for registration and deposited the initial payment that the enhancement of cost of the house/flat amounting almost double of the estimated cost as shown in the brochure while inviting the applications and the increase of the monthly installments are much beyond the means of the allottees and that this arbitrary and unilateral stand of the Petitioners is to the prejudice of the allottees On these findings the supreme Court refused to consider the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution and reversed the judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1986 All. 369 20. The principle enunciated by the Supreme Court is cot applicable to the facts of the present case. The present case turns upon arbitrary action of the Respondent in enforcing a claim against the Petitioner which under the brochure or under the terms and conditions of auction is not recoverable from the Petitioner. The Supreme Court has held that if increase in the price of flat was arbitrary it would intervene but in that case the Development Authority had notified that the cost of the flat/dwelling unit was liable to be increased or decreased depending on the rise and fall of the market price of building material. The Supreme Court has held that if increase in the price of flat was arbitrary it would intervene but in that case the Development Authority had notified that the cost of the flat/dwelling unit was liable to be increased or decreased depending on the rise and fall of the market price of building material. Therefore, no question of arbitrariness was attributable to the Bareilly Development Authority, whereas in this case the arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the Respondent is writ large on the face of the record. 21. From the totality of the circumstances we are convinced that the action of the Respondent is not only arbitrary bat appears to be whimsical and unwarranted. The Respondent is obliged to deliver possession of the plot to the Petitioner and execute a lease deed also. It cannot cancel the allotment of the plot in question, which stands allotted to the Petitioner and for which the Petitioner has paid to entire amount. The Petitioner’s claim for payment of interest on the amount which he has already deposited in commercial parlance does not seem to be unreasonable. However, we do not wish to grant that relief to the Petitioner in our discretion. The amount deposited by the Petitioner is retained by the Respondent and it is sitting tight on the said amount and then it has the cheek to demand interest of the belated payment from the Petitioner in violation of the conditions of the auction. A very valuable right of the Petitioner is likely to be taken away, he is, therefore, entitled to the writ of certiorari as also of mandamus against the Respondent. 22. We, therefore, for the reasons stated above, allow this writ petition and grant the Petitioner the following reliefs: (a) The letter dated 11-2-1991, Annexure 15 to the writ petition, by which the Petitioner has been asked to pay interest of Rs.3,38,378/- on the belated payments made by him by 25-2-1991, failing which the allotment in his favour is to be cancelled is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and the same is hereby quashed. The return of the Bank draft for Rs.2.225/- to the Petitioner is held to be bad The Petitioner shall pay the said amount of Rs.2,225/- as balance of the cost price to the Respondent through Bank draft within two weeks from the date of obtaining a certified copy of this order and the Respondent is directed to accept the said amount and adjust the same towards the full and final cost of the plot in question; (b) By a writ of mandamus the Respondent is directed not to cancel the allotment of Plot No. A-4, Raj Nagar. Ghaziabad in favour of the Petitioner and not to reauction the same in any manner; and (c) By a further writ of mandamus the Respondent is commanded to deliver the possession of the plot in question to the Petitioner and execute a lease deed in accordance with law in respect of the said plot in favour of the Petitioner. 23. We decline to allow the Petitioner's prayer for giant of interest on payments which he had made to the Respondent. 24. However, the Petitioner shall be entitled to get costs of this petition from the Respondent.