Judgment : The petitioner and the respondents in all these writ petitions are one and the same.-This apart, the facts covering the issues for decision are almost identical. Consequently, these petitions are taken and grouped together for convenient disposal. 2. The petitioner in all these petitions is the association going by the name, ‘Anna Nagar Western (or West end) Plots Owners Association’ and the respondents 1 and 2 are respectively the Tamilnadu Housing Board represented by its Chairman, Nandanam, Madras-35 and the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Special Divi-sion-I, Anna Nagar Western Extension, Tamilnadu Housing Board, Madras-101. 3. The petitioner-Association, it is said, had been formed for the welfare of the plot owners under the Tamilnadu Housing Board Scheme known as ‘Arignar Anna Nagar Western Extension Scheme’ and its members are the allottees of the plots in the said scheme. 4. The Tamilnadu Housing Board, it is said, had been constituted for the avowed object of acquiring lands and allotting the same on equitable basis. The Board is to function on a non-profit oriented organisation. The various allottees under the scheme were required to execute lease-cum-sale agreement. The allotments in favour of various allottees had been made during the period between 1972 and 1982. 5. At the time of allotment, the allottees were required to execute another document called ‘House Site for Hire Purchase-conditions for Allotment of Building Sites". There was a crucial clause in the lease-cum-sale agreement for fixation of final price, which is reflected as follows: “The final price of the site due to the increased cost of development charges and provisions of amenities etc., shall be determined within a period of five years from the date of allotment excepting in the acquisition proceedings pending in Civil Courts. Such fixation of price by the Lessor/Vendor is conclusive and final”. The tentative price fixed for allotment of house sites depended upon the year of allotment and it ranged from Rs.7,500 to Rs.40,000. Most of the allottees, it is said, had effected payments towards the tentative cost of house sites in instalments. The Housing Board, in the meantime by Resolution No.20, dated 25. 1984 determined the final cost quantified in a specified sum depending upon the year of allotment and the final cost so fixed varied from Rs.15,600 to Rs.40,000. Based on the said resolution, the Housing Board despatched letters in Ref.No.ANW-l/C433/84, dated 28. The Housing Board, in the meantime by Resolution No.20, dated 25. 1984 determined the final cost quantified in a specified sum depending upon the year of allotment and the final cost so fixed varied from Rs.15,600 to Rs.40,000. Based on the said resolution, the Housing Board despatched letters in Ref.No.ANW-l/C433/84, dated 28. 1984, to various allottees demanding payment of revised cost price, without disclosing the rationale or basis for such revised cost price of the house sites. .6. The petitioner-Association issued a notice to the Housing Board requiring it to disclose the basis for such a revision of cost price. The Housing Board, in turn, furnished particulars, which did not at all disclose anything impelling the Board to revise the cost of the plots due to increase in development charges or provision of amenities or payment of enhanced compensation amount to the erstwhile owners, from whom the lands were acquired for the purpose of allotment of house sites. 7. This apart, the said resolution, it is said, had been held to be invalid and unenforceable and consequently, the fixation of final cost was held to be arbitrary and incorrect in a decision of this Court. In Anna Nagor Western Extension Association represented by its Secretary K. Chandrasekaran v. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board represented by its Chairman and another, C.S.No.385 of 1985, dated 7. 1991, rendered by Maruthamuthu, J. 8. Besides this Court allowed a batch of writ petitions, namely, The Artisons Residents Welfare Association represented by its President v. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board represented by its Chairman, W.P.Nos.3993 of 1991, etc. dated 13. 1992, by directing the Tamilnadu Housing Board to exe-cute sale deeds in favour of the respective allottees therein without demanding any sum in excess of the original cost fixed in the lease-cum-sale agreement. 9. Contending that the impugned demands on the members of the petitioner-Association as detailed in the list annexed to the respective writ petitions are discriminatory in nature. In the light of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the present actions have been resorted to for issue of writs of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from demanding or recovering from them any amount in excess of the original price fixed and paid by them. .10. In the light of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the present actions have been resorted to for issue of writs of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from demanding or recovering from them any amount in excess of the original price fixed and paid by them. .10. The clause relatable to fixation of final price as contained in the lease-cum-sale agreement, which had been extracted earlier, contains certain parameters for revision of the cost of the house sites. According to such clause, it is legitimately permissible for the Housing Board to revise the final cost when there is an increase in the cost of development charges and provisions of amenities etc., and this sort of a revision has to be done within a period of five years from the date of allotment excepting in the case of acquisition proceedings pending in civil courts. Neither the particulars furnished by the Housing Board as a consequence of the demand from the members of the petitioner. .Association nor the counter filed by the Housing Board did disclose anything to explain that the revision of cost of the housesites had been impelled to be done by the parameters fixed in the clause relatable to the revision of final cost of the house sites. In such circumstances, the petitioner-Association herein cannot be stated to be not right in contending that its members listed in the annex-ure appended to the respective writ petitions had been discriminated against the claimants in C.S.No.385 of 1985 and in petitioners in W.P.Nos.3793 of 1991, etc., batches of cases on this Court. 11. In this view of the matter, there is no other go except to allow all these writ petitions as prayed for and accordingly, they are allowed. Rule nisis earlier issued are made absolute. There shall, however, be no order as to costs in all these writ petitions.