DR. M. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking forissuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent by quashing the demand forpayment of the rates of premium at Rs. 214. 00 per sq. meter for 237 sq. meters and atrs. 1306. 00 per sq. meter for 162 sq. meters. In the writ. petition, a further relief issought for restraining the respondent from recovering premium for the plot of landsituated at T-1/93, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase-1, Delhi, at a rate higher thanrs. 200. 00 per sq. meter for the entire area. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in 1973 started the business of manufacturing machinery inproperty No. 1022, Gali Chabuk Sawar, Bazar Lal Kuan, Delhi. It is stated that as perthe Master Plan and Zonal Plan the said area is a non-conforming area whichotherwise means that the said plot of land cannot be used for carrying on industrialactivities. ( 3 ) IN 1976 the respondent announced a scheme whereby it undertook to developfour industrial areas, Patpar Ganj Industrial Area in the East, Hyderpur Industrial Areain the North, Mangol Puri Industrial area in the West and Okhla Industrial Area in thesouth. Under the aforesaid scheme, non-conforming industrial units were given anoption to apply for allotment of plots in one of the aforesaid industrial areas. The ratesfor the said plots were as follows:-Size of plot (in sq. meters)1. Upto 5002. More than 500 upto 1000rates per sq. meter (in Rs.)2001803. More than 1000 upto 2000 Pursuant to the aforesaid scheme and to take advantage of the said scheme,the petitioners deposited an amount of Rs. 1,000. 00and submitted the form No. 3474seeking for allotment of 840 sq. meters of land. Later oh the respondent revised thesaid policy and prescribed that 30% of the price of the plot shall have to be depositedin advance along with the application form. As the petitioners did not have funds todeposit 30% of the premium of a plot of land measuring 840 sq. meters, theysubmitted on 12. 11. 1976 another form No. 254 applying for allotment of a plot of landmeasuring 400 sq. meters along with the treasury challan for Rs. 24,000. 00 being 30%of the premium for a plot of 400 sq. meters. ( 4 ) BY letter dated 3. 2. meters, theysubmitted on 12. 11. 1976 another form No. 254 applying for allotment of a plot of landmeasuring 400 sq. meters along with the treasury challan for Rs. 24,000. 00 being 30%of the premium for a plot of 400 sq. meters. ( 4 ) BY letter dated 3. 2. 1981 the respondent informed the petitioners that a decisionhad been taken to allot to the petitioners an industrial plot, out of the plots which werebeing developed near Mangol Puri. It was also intimated that the plots were going tobe carved out soon and the date for draw of lots for specific allotment would beintimated to the petitioners and thereafter demand letter would be issued. On18. 6. 1984 a further communication was sent to the petitioners by the respondentintimating the petitioners that a decision had been taken to allot to the petitioners aplot of land measuring 400 sq. meters approximately on perpetual lease hold basisfor shifting their industrial unit from the present non-conforming location. It was alsointimated that the aforesaid allotment is on the specific condition that within 30months from the date of possession of the plot, use of the present premises for thepurpose of any manufacturing processor-running of any industry, would be stopped. In the said letter it was also intimated that the petitioners shall have to pay for 237sq. meters atrs. 200. 00per sq. meter and for the balance 163 sq. meter at Rs. 420. 00 persq. meter. The said letter is annexed to the petition as annexure A-3 . ( 5 ) IT is stated in the petition that the petitioners were surprised to receive a letterfrom the respondent on or about 11. 10. 1985 intimating the petitioners that a plot ofland measuring 399 sq. meters is being allotted to the petitioners at a premium ofrs. 214. 00per sq. meter for 237 sq. meter and at a premium for the excess area, thatis,162 sq. meters at Rs. 1306. 00 per sq. meter. Immediately the petitioners filed arepresentation, but the said representation of the petitioners were rejected by thecompetent Authority and the petitioners were directed to make the payment as perthe demand letter dated 11. 10. 1985 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annumupto the date of payment. It was further intimated that failing payment in terms of theaforesaid order, offer for allotment of the plot would be treated as withdrawn. 10. 1985 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annumupto the date of payment. It was further intimated that failing payment in terms of theaforesaid order, offer for allotment of the plot would be treated as withdrawn. Beingaggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition in thiscourt. ( 6 ) ON 12. 3. 1987 while issuing Rule in the petition, an interim order was passed bythis Court to the effect that allotment of plot No. T-1 /93, Mangol Puri Industrial Area,phase-1, Delhi would not be cancelled conditional on the petitioner depositing theamount as worked out on the basis of the letter dated 18. 6. 1984 which is annexurea-3 . The said order came to be made absolute on 23. 7. 1987 when this Courtordered that if ultimately the writ petition is dismissed, the petitioners would be liableto pay 18% interest with yearly interest on the excess amount demanded by therespondent. It was also ordered that the petitioners would not in any way alienate,transfer or part with possession of the land as and when the possession of the sameis handed over to the petitioners. ( 7 ) THE respondent/dda contested the Writ petition by filing a counter affidavitcontending, inter alia, that the petitioners were allotted the aforesaid plot bearingno. T-1/93, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase - It measuring about 300 sq. metersfor the programme of shifting of industries from the non-conforming to the conformingareas. It was also stated that the entitlement of the petitioners was for an area of 237sq. meters and, therefore, for the said area rate was fixed at Rs. 200. 00 per sq. meter. Itwas also stated on behalf of the respondent that the aforesaid fixation of rate wastentative and subject to revision as was made clear in the letter dated 18. 6. 1984. Itwas also stated that the petitioners unit was entitled to a plot of land measuring 237sq. meters and the actual allotment made to the unit was for an area of 399 sq. metersand, therefore, in terms of the policy decision arrived at by the respondent, therespondent charged for an area of 237 sq. meters at the rate of the reserved priceand for the balance area at the market rate prevailing on the date of approval. meters and the actual allotment made to the unit was for an area of 399 sq. metersand, therefore, in terms of the policy decision arrived at by the respondent, therespondent charged for an area of 237 sq. meters at the rate of the reserved priceand for the balance area at the market rate prevailing on the date of approval. It wasalso stated that subsequently on the basis of the policy formulated by the Delhidevelopment Authority, a demand letter was issued vide letter dated 26. 2. 1987charging at Rs. 214. 00 per sq. meter for an area of 237 sq. meters and at Rs. 1306. 00 persq. meter for an area over and above the entitlement area. ( 8 ) IN the backdrop of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, counsel for thepetitioner submitted that the respondent having decided some time in 1976 that therates applicable for the developed plot upto 500 sq. meters would be charged atrs. 200. 00 per. meter, the respondent could not have at a subsequent stage raised therates and demanded a higher price from the petitioners. Counsel for the petitionersalso submitted that the principle of promissory estoppel is fully applicable to the factsand circumstances of the case. He submitted that the respondent is a public bodyand is bound by the announcement made by it in 1976 and, therefore, it cannotarbitrarily and in unfair manner raise the rates of premium again and again. In supportor his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions in Paradiseprinters and others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others; reported inair 1988 Supreme Court 354, The Atam Nagar Co-operative House Bldg. Society Ltd. , Ludhiana Vs. State of Punjab and others; reported in AIR 1979punjab and Haryana 196, Moolchand Shamlal Vs. Food Corporation; reported in1991 Rajdhani Law Reporter 45, Vijay Kumar Ganeja Vs. D. D. A; reported in 1990rajdharu Law Reporter 436 and Ashok Kumar Behal and Ors. Vs. U. O. I. and Others;reported in 1993 Rajdhani Law Reporter (DB) 526. ( 9 ) COUNSEL for the respondent, however, submitted that what the petitioners havesought to challenge here is the policy decision of the Government which cannot beinterfered with under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of theconstitution of India. Vs. U. O. I. and Others;reported in 1993 Rajdhani Law Reporter (DB) 526. ( 9 ) COUNSEL for the respondent, however, submitted that what the petitioners havesought to challenge here is the policy decision of the Government which cannot beinterfered with under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of theconstitution of India. It was also submitted by her that at the time when theannouncement was made for development of the aforesaid industrial areas and alsowhile intimating the petitioners regarding the decision to allot to the petitioners anarea of 400 sq. methers, the rates fixed were tentative and were subject to revisionwhich was subsequently revised and finalised through the policy decision and,therefore, the petitioners are liable to pay in accordance with the aforesaid policydecision. She also submitted that fixation of price of plots of land is exclusively withinthe domain and discretion of the Executive and the same cannot be challengedthrough a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support ofher contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions of this Court in R. K. Kawatra, etc. Vs. D. S. I. D. C. , etc,; reported in AIR 1992 Delhi 28, Ramanandvs. Union of India and others; reported in AIR 1-994 Delhi 29 (Full Bench), Jaiparkash Tyagi Vs. Delhi Development Authority; reported in 1997 V AD (Delhi)873; M/s. Sitaram Sugar Co. , Ltd. , and Another s. Union of India and others,reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1277, Bareilly Development Authority andanother s. Ajay Pal Singh and others; reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court1076 and Khurseed Jahan Vs. Delhi Development Authority; reported in 1997 III (Delhi) 1053. ( 10 ) IN the light of the aforesaid submissions and decisions relied upon by thecounsel for the parties, let me proceed to decide the merit of the present petition. ( 11 ) IT is an admitted position that in spite of the allotment of the aforesaid alternativeplot of land at Mangol Puri Industrial Area, the petitioners continue to be in possessionand operate from the property No. 1022, Gali Chabuk Sawar, Bazar Lal Kuan, Delhi. The allotment of plot of land at Mangol Puri Industrial Area, is, therefore, in addition tothe aforesaid property held by the petitioner. In 1976, an announcement was made bythe Delhi development Authority that four areas within Delhi are being developed forestablishment of industrial Area. The allotment of plot of land at Mangol Puri Industrial Area, is, therefore, in addition tothe aforesaid property held by the petitioner. In 1976, an announcement was made bythe Delhi development Authority that four areas within Delhi are being developed forestablishment of industrial Area. Information was given to the non-conforming industrialunits giving them an option to apply for allotment of plots in one of the aforesaidindustrial scheme. In the said announcement it was also stated that rates to becharged for different types of developed plots would be at the price mentionedtherein and for a plot of land measuring 500 sq. meter, the rate shown was Rs. 200. 00per sq. meter. The letter dated 3. 2. 1981 which is annexed to the writ petition as annexure A-2 would indicate that a decision was taken by the respondent to allot anindustrial plot to the petitioners in Mangol Puri Industrial Area which is being developedfor development as an Industrial Area. The said letter further indicates that plots are inthe process of being carved out and that the draw of lots would be held only after theplots are carved out. Reference may also be made to the intimation dated 18. 6. 1984on which the petitioners seek to put a strong reliance contending, inter alia, that therates cannot be enhanced by the respondent that what is stated in the said letter. Thisletter, therefore, is required to be given a closer look in order to decide thecontroversy between the parties. The said letter dated 18. 6. 1984 is annexed as annexure A-3 whereby, the petitioner were intimated that a plot of land measuring400 sq. meters approximately has been decided to be allotted to the petitioners toenable them to shift their industry from the present non-conforming location. By thesaid letter the petitioners were advised to deposit an amount for 237 sq. meters atrs. 200. 00 per sq. meter and for 163 sq. meter at the rate of Rs. 420. 00 per sq. meter. Paragraph 3 of the said letter is very relevant which states that the aforesaid ratementioned in paragraph 2 is subject to revision of rates, variation in size of plot andrequirement of layout plan. Even the letter is shown to be provisional as indicated atthe top of the letter itself. ( 12 ) ON 11. 10. 420. 00 per sq. meter. Paragraph 3 of the said letter is very relevant which states that the aforesaid ratementioned in paragraph 2 is subject to revision of rates, variation in size of plot andrequirement of layout plan. Even the letter is shown to be provisional as indicated atthe top of the letter itself. ( 12 ) ON 11. 10. 1985 a further letter came to be issued to the petitioners intimatingthem the decision of the respondent to allot a plot of land measuring 399 sq. metersapproximately to enable the petitioners for shifting of their industry from the nonconforming location. In the said letter it was specifically mentioned that the totalpremium payable for the aforesaid plot of land at Mangol Puri Industrial unit would bers. 214. 00 per sq. meter for 237 sq. meters and at Rs. 1306. 00 per sq. meter for theexcess area, that is, 162 sq. meter. The said rates were also made subject to revisionof rates, variation in size of plot and requirement of layout plan, justifications theaforesaid demand, the respondent had stated that under the scheme formulated forshifting of industries from non-conforming to conforming area,, it was decided thatthose who had anarea upto 100 sq. meters would be allotted plots of 200 sq. metersand those who had an area above 100 sq. meters, would be alloted plots 400 sq. meters. It is also the case of the respondent that as per the survey conducted by therespondent -Authority, the petitioners industry had a covered area of 142 sq. yards,i. e. , 118. 72 sq. meters and thus it was entitled to a plot of 237 sq. meters and as thepetitioners industry was alloted a plot of 400 sq. meters, 237 sq. meters were given atreserve price of Rs. 214. 00 per sq. meter and for the excess 163 sq. meters of land therate prevailing on the date of approval of the said allotment was charged from thepetitioners. ( 13 ) COUNSEL for the petitioners sought to take up a plea of discrimination as againstallotment of land so far M/s. Bansal Box and Corrugating Industries is concerned. During the course of his submissions, counsel for the petitioners submitted that so farm/s. Bansal Box and Corrugating Industries is concerned, rate of premium has beencharged only at Rs. 200. 00per sq. meter whereas a higher rate is being charged fromthe petitioners. During the course of his submissions, counsel for the petitioners submitted that so farm/s. Bansal Box and Corrugating Industries is concerned, rate of premium has beencharged only at Rs. 200. 00per sq. meter whereas a higher rate is being charged fromthe petitioners. The said plea is found to be baseless and without merit for accordingto the survey conducted by the respondent-Authority M/s Bansal Box and Corrugatingindustries had a covered area of 444 sq. yards, i. e. , 372. 95 sq. meters and, therefore,under the scheme the said industry was entitled to an area of 745. 90 sq. meters andas against the said entitlement M/s. Bansal Box and Corrugating Industries wasallotted a plot of only 399 sq. meters at a reserve price of Rs. 200. 00 per sq. meter andthus no case of discrimination is made out on the basis of the aforesaid facts. Thesubmission of the counsel for the petitioners on that score, therefore, fails. ( 14 ) THE demand letter dated 18. 6. 1984 was issued to the petitioners on a provisionalbasis and the revised rates fixed under the said demand letter were also madesubject to revision of rates, variation in size of plots and requirement of layout plan. Therefore, no finality could be attached to the aforesaid demand letter and thepetitioners were aware even at that point of time that the rate of premium fixed by therespondent could be revised at a later stage. Subsequently as a policy decision, itwas decided by the respondent fixing the rate of the reserve price at Rs. 214. 00 persq. meter for the area of the entitlement and for the balance area at the market rate onthe date of approval. The same is a policy decision of the respondent which was infact adopted after making it clear to the petitioners at the earlier stage that it is likelyto be revised at a later stage. The petitioners were fully aware that the rate chargedcould be revised later on and still chose to take the opportunity of getting allotment ofland and, therefore, cannot refuse to pay in terms of demand as per the policy. Therefore, the plea of promissory estoppel as sought to be raised by the petitionersis without any merit. ( 15 ) IN M/s Shrisitaram Sugar Co. Therefore, the plea of promissory estoppel as sought to be raised by the petitionersis without any merit. ( 15 ) IN M/s Shrisitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. and another (supra), the Supreme Courthas held that price fixation is not within the province of the courts and that judicialfunction in respect of such matters is exhausted when there is found to be a rationalbasis for the conclusions reached by the concerned authority. It was further held thatjudicial review is not concerned with matters of economic policy and that the Courtdoes not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature or its agents as to matterswithin the province of either and the Court does not supplant the "feel of the expert" byits own views. ( 16 ) THE petitioners herein have not challenged the scheme of fixation of two rates ofpremium, one for the area of entitlement and for the balance amount at the marketrate on the date of approval. ( 17 ) IN Ramanand (supra), it was held by the Full Bench that the premium chargeablefrom the allottee is to be calculated at pre-determined rates prevailing on the datewhen the offer is made to him by the Delhi Dpvelopment Authority for allotment of aspecific plot of land in a particular area or zone under the Nazul Rules. In R. K. Kawatraetc. (supra) , it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that in the matter ofallotment of plots by the Government, price fixation of plots is a matter of policy andnot within the province of the Courts and in coming to the aforesaid decision, thedivision Bench followed the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Shrisitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. (supra ). The facts of the aforesaid decisions are found to beakin to the one in hand. In the Division Bench decision of this Court, it was held that,the 1977 policy was purley tentative and no promises or assurances were held outtherein. It was found that the petitioners were fully aware of this fact and were waitingfor the final policy to emerge and when the final policy was announced in 1987, theysubscribed to the same and took benefits under it by getting allotment of plots. In thefacts and circumstances of the said case, the Division Bench held that doctrine ofpromissory estoppel cannot be at all attracted. In thefacts and circumstances of the said case, the Division Bench held that doctrine ofpromissory estoppel cannot be at all attracted. ( 18 ) IN my considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid Division Bench decision ofthis Court is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and in that view of thematter, the decisions relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioners in Theatam Nagar Co-operative House Bidg. Society Ltd. , Ludhiana, Moolchand Shamlaland Vijay Kumar Ganeja (supra) are not applicable. So far the decision in Paradiseprinters and others (supra) is concerned, the ratio of the said decision is notapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the facts of both thecases are distinguishable. The said plea of applicability of the principle of promissoryestoppel is without any merit. ( 19 ) IN the result, there is no merit in this petition and the petition and the petition isdismissed. The petitioners are given four weeks time to make payment of thebalance amount in terms of the demand of the respondent. The petitioners are alsoliable to pay 18% interest with yearly interest on the excess amount demanded by therespondent, in terms of the interim order passed by this Court on 23. 7. 1987. Theentire amount demanded by the respondent along with the aforesaid rate of intereston the said amount shall be paid by the petitioners within four weeks from todayfailing which, the allotment made in favour of the petitioners would stand cancelled. Inthe facts and circumstances of the case, I, however, do not pass any order for costs.