JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C. J.—The complaint of the petitioners is against the demand of excess amount than what was originally fixed as cost of the house. Even as per the terms of the original contract the respondent reserved the rights to change the cost depending upon the actual cost of construction, escalation in cost of land, material, labour or for any ether unforeseen reasons and that the manner in which the revised cost will be payable shall be determined by the respondent. In this case, the original cost was Rs 3,03,300, as per Annexure P-6. The contract rate was only tentative and now the demand is for Rs. 6,06,6005 escalated by 100%. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the enhancement is arbitrary and there is no basis therefor at all it is contended by the petitioner that the respondent must have completed the construction within three or four years and the delay was due to no fault of the petitioner and therefore he is not responsible for the escalation of the price The petitioner was not given possession of the premises in spite of entire amount, as demanded by the respondent, having been deposited with them. 3. We are unable to accept this contention of the writ petitioner, We are of the opinion that the remedy of the petitioner is to file a regular suit for claiming such relief, to which he may be entitled. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Sadhana Agarwal and others, (1995) 3 SCC 1. This decision was based upon the facts of that case and it was held that enhancement was not justified. The Supreme Court has made the observation that the statutory authority shall not act arbitrarily in changing the terms and conditions of the original contract. While doing so, the Court referred to earlier judgment in Bareilly Development Authority and another v, Ajai Pal Singh and others, (1989) 2 SCC 116, 4. The Supreme Court has made the observation that the statutory authority shall not act arbitrarily in changing the terms and conditions of the original contract. While doing so, the Court referred to earlier judgment in Bareilly Development Authority and another v, Ajai Pal Singh and others, (1989) 2 SCC 116, 4. In Bareilly Development Authoritys case (supra), the Bench, which decided the case, pointed out that the contract, being a non-statutory one, the remedy of the parties was to go before Civil Court and not utilize Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that no writ or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be issued so as to compel the authority to remedy a breach of contract. 5. It is clear that the said principle will apply in the present case, particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioner has also demanded the damages on the ground that the respondent had not completed the building within the specified time. 6. Our attention is drawn to the judgment in Lucknow Development Authority v. M K, Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243. That case arose under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court has observed that the public authorities should not act arbitrarily and administrative action should be based on socio-economic outlook and action of public functionary should be for the sake of society. The general observations made therein cannot be invoked in the present case. 7. The remedy of the petitioners is to file a regular suit for such reliefs as they may be entitled. This petition is dismissed with the above observations. C. M. Ps. No. 3625, 3626 of 1996 : In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, these applications are also dismissed. Petition dismissed.