K. D. SHAHI, J. These writ petitions have been filed against U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Allahabad and another, praying for issue of a writ, order or direc tion in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to deliver possession pf the houses in question at the same price on which it could have been allotted in the year, 1988, the year of construction and further praying for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders by which an excessive demand had been made as the price of the house allotted to each of the petitioners. 2. In Writ Petition No. 29500 of 1991 (Teerath Ram v. U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and another) petitioner Teerath Ram was allotted House No. 512, E. W. S. Jhusi Avas Yojna No. 2 at a price of Rs. 68, 298. 50-P by an order dated 2-12-1992. The petitioner is a member of Schedule Caste. The house in dispute is said to have been constructed in 1988 and by an order dated 31-3-1998 this very house was allotted to Siya Ram Gupta for a sum of Rs. 39,188/ -. It is alleged that after the year 1988 no further construction or improvement was made in the house. 3. In Writ Petition No. 29569 of 1993 (Ram Chandra Mishra v. U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and another) House No 4/164, L. I. G. Jhunsi Avas Yojna-3, Al lahabad was allotted to petitioner Ram Chandra Mishra at the price of Rs. 1,14,884/- by an order dated 6-11-1992. It is said that House No. 8/862 LIG Jhunsi Avas Yojna, which is the adjacent house, was allotted to Smt. Krishna Mishra at a price of Rs. 72,735/- by an order dated 7-12-1990. It is stated that the petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of price of the house. 4. In Writ Petition No. 12164 of 1992 (Vinod Kumar Srivastava v. U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and another) by an order dated 2-1-1992 petitioner Vinod Kumar Srivastava was allotted House No. 96, HIG Jhunsi Avas Yojna, Allahabad at a price of Rs. 3,09,264/ -. It is alleged that this house was also constructed in the year 1988. Thereafter there was no further con struction or improvement in its House No. 95, HIG Jhunsi Avas Yojna which is ad jacent house was allotted to Smt. Kamla Kumari at a price of Rs. 3,09,264/ -. It is alleged that this house was also constructed in the year 1988. Thereafter there was no further con struction or improvement in its House No. 95, HIG Jhunsi Avas Yojna which is ad jacent house was allotted to Smt. Kamla Kumari at a price of Rs. 1,92,201/- by order dated 1-9-1988. 5. In all three writ petitions it is al leged that U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad is a State under Article 12 of the Constitu tion. It undertakes the responsibility of constructing the houses to provide better amenities of residence to the citizens. It constructs houses and allots them to the needy persons without any profit or loss basis. In pursuant to the advertisement the petitioners applied and they were allotted houses at exorbitant price. In all the three writ petitions it is alleged that since the house had been constructed in 1988 it should have been sold to the petitioners without any enhancement in price. All the petitioners have quoted several interim stay orders granted by this Court in various writ petitions but there is nothing to indi cate that any such petition had been decided on merits. 6. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit alleging that advertise ments were made, price was notified and allotments were made. The petitioners after accepting the price, deposited the initial amount demanded and accepted the allotment on the said price. They are now not entitled to challenge the said allot ment order on the ground of enhancement in price. It is specifically contended by the respondents that even if normal interest at the rate of 18% (eighteen per cent) is charged then also the price cannot be said to be exorbitant. In the matter of Vinod Kumar Srivastava it is specifically pleaded that there was an advertisement dated 16-12-1991 in which it was definitely men tioned that the price of the house shall range between three lacs twenty five thousand to four lacs and in pursuance of this advertisement petitioner Vinod Kumar Srivastava applied for allotment and as such he cannot now challenge the price. If he was not interested to take the house at this price he should not have applied and should not have accepted the allotment order. 7. In all the three petitions common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, all the petitions are taken together for disposal by a common judg ment. If he was not interested to take the house at this price he should not have applied and should not have accepted the allotment order. 7. In all the three petitions common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, all the petitions are taken together for disposal by a common judg ment. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not show any brochure rule or law by which respondents were not en titled to claim enhanced price. Rather, the case of the petitioners is that the houses had been constructed in the year 1988. There has not been any addition, altera tion or improvement in the said houses. The price of the houses should remain the same as it was in 1988 and it should not have been enhanced. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the respondents are an instrumen tality of State. It is not a profit earning organisation and, like an ordinary businessman, it cannot enhance the price. It has to sell the houses on ordinary price on which it was constructed. It was, there fore, alleged that in the case of Siya Ram the same very house was sold to Siya Ram Gupta on 31-8-1988 for a sum of Rs. 29. 188/- (incorrectly printed as 39,188 in para 9 of the writ petition ). Its price could not have been fixed at Rs. 68,298/- on 2-12-1992. In the matter of Ram Chandra Mishra allotment to him was made on 6-11- 1992 at a price of Rs. 1,14,884/-while the adjacent house was allotted to Smt. Krishna Mishra for a sum of Rs. 72,735/-on 6- 12-1990. There was a gap of four years in the matter of allotment of Teerath Ram and two years in the matter of allot ment to petitioner-Ram Chandra Mishra. 9. In the case of Teerath Ram it is specifically pleaded by the respondents that the petitioner was originally allotted House No. 404 but it is on his request that House No. 512 was allotted to him. He had agreed to pay the difference of the price. He did not raise any objection in respect of the price of House No. 512 and completed all the formalities, mentioned in the allot ment order. He had agreed to pay the difference of the price. He did not raise any objection in respect of the price of House No. 512 and completed all the formalities, mentioned in the allot ment order. It was further pleaded in the case of Teerath Ram that respondent No. 1 has taken loan from the financial institu tions and if the constructed houses are not disposed of atonce the interest thereof is to be borne by the respondents which is to be added in the account of the building to be charged from the allottee. In the case of Ram Chandra Mishra, in para 5 of the counter-affidavit it is pleaded that it had to pay interest to the financial authorities and it is to be added in the price of the constructed houses. Parishad is to con struct the houses and sell them on no profit no gain basis but interest, it has to pay, is to be covered in the price of the houses al lotted to the buyers. 10. It is true that Avas Vikas Parishad is not a profit earning organisation but it is further true that it has to keep the estab lishment, it ha$ to employ and engage min isterial staff, officers Engineers and con tractors etc. to carry on its functions in cluding the construction of houses. It has to pay their salaries and incur lot of expen ses in their establishment and all this has to be borne by the Parishad. It has to incur these expenses from its own earnings. Be sides, it is specifically pleaded that respon dent No. 1 has got no fund of its own. It has to borrow loans from the financial institu tions and had to pay interest thereon. Therefore, even if there has not been any addition, alteration or improvement in the houses constructed in 1988 then also the respondents cannot be forced to sell or allot the house to its customers at the price of 1988 even in the year 1990 and 1992 and bear the interest itself. 11. Allotments were made by the respondents on the applications of the petitioners. They may or may not have accepted the allotment order. They can not, on one hand accept the allotment, complete the formalities and on the other hand challenge the price. 11. Allotments were made by the respondents on the applications of the petitioners. They may or may not have accepted the allotment order. They can not, on one hand accept the allotment, complete the formalities and on the other hand challenge the price. They accepted the allotment orders on the price men tioned in the allotment letters. Therefore, they are subsequently stopped from chal lenging the price. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred a Division Bench ruling, reported in (1992) (2) UPLBEC 1184, Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur. It was mentioned in the judgment that K. D. A. has asked petitioner to pay Rs. 11,471. 75 which price is about 42. 86% more than what has been for similar other flats. The demand of such higher sum is per se dis criminatory. It was held that the un reasonableness of demand of higher price @ 25% per year, can be examined from another angle also because the K. D. A. has not assigned any reason as to how it ar rived to this figure. In the allotment order K. D. A. has not given any reason why they enhanced the price. It was specifically mentioned in the judgment "it is not the case of K. D. A. that the higher price was demanded as it has to pay interest to some other corporate body or financial institu tion increasing the cost of dwelling unit allotted to petitioner. But in this petition, as discussed above, it is a definite case of the respondent that it has got loan from the financial institutions and has to pay interest to those corporate bodies and financial institutions. Naturally, even if they had to pay 12% interest in a period of two years the price shall be increased by 24% plus usual expenses incurred in the establishment. The price had to increase by 48% as the house was allotted after four years. This ruling of Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, as discussed above, shall not apply to the facts of the present case. The other rulings; AIR 1979 SC 1628 Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Air port Authority of India and others, AIR 1959 SC 149 (V 46-C 22),bashesha Nath v. I. T. Commissioner, and AIR 1991 SC 587; Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. This ruling of Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, as discussed above, shall not apply to the facts of the present case. The other rulings; AIR 1979 SC 1628 Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Air port Authority of India and others, AIR 1959 SC 149 (V 46-C 22),bashesha Nath v. I. T. Commissioner, and AIR 1991 SC 587; Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. are of no help to the petitioner because the facts of the present cases are entirely different from those referred to in the above rulings. 13. From the discussions made above, it is clear that although the respon dent is not a profit earning institution but it also does not run on charity. It runs on its own earnings. It has to pay interest and has also to meet other expenses. If the petitioners applied for and were allotted houses and they have accepted the same on the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment orders they have to carry on their obligation. They were not forced to accept the allotment on enhanced price. If they preferred to purchase the houses, they should pay. 14. Vinod Kumar Srivastava has got still a worst case. In his matter there was a definite advertisement on 16-12-1991 that the houses shall be sold at a price ranging between Rs. 3,25,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/- and it is in pursuance of this advertisement that he had applied for allotment of the house. 15. None of these petitions have got any merit. These petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .