JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The petitioners had applied for allotment of house to be constructed by Orissa State Housing Board. As per the Brochure it had been agreed that payment shall be made by way of installment. Initially, a tentative price was fixed at Rs. 1,99,900/-. Subsequently, the price was increased to Rs. 2,73,370/-. The petitioners have challenged such enhancement in this writ application. 2. During the peridency of the writ application, the opposite, parties had reduced the price to Rs; 2,52,000/. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the opposite parties Have arbitrarily increased the price without any rhyme and reasqn. He has relied upon the decision reported in Indore Development Authority Vs. Sadhana Agarwal (Smt) and Others, wherein it has been indicated that though there may be escalation, the authority dbes not have' jurisdiction to increase the price arbitrarily. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the opposite ; parties are charging Rs. 1,96,000/- for houses under the self- financing scheme and Rs. 2,34,000/- from persons who are purchas ing 6n the basis of downright payment. Therefore, there is no justification to charge Rs. 2,52,000/- from the petitioners. It is also contended that the petitioners are also required to pay further interest. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the amount intimated to the petitioners includes amount payable towards interest because of the deferred payment and the question of payment of further interest would arise only when there is non-payment of an installment. 4. As observed in the decision reported in Bareilly Development Authority and Another Vs. Ajay Pal Singh and Others, the price indicated in the brochure is only tentative and there is always possibility of escalation. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the decision reported in Satrughan Nayak and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, The decision relied upon by the petitioners reported in Indore Development Authority Vs. Sadhana Agarwal (Smt) and Others, does not lay down any different principle. The only rider is that the authority while escalating the price should not act arbitrarily. 5. It has been submitted by the counsel for the opp. parties that the persons opting for self-financing scheme are paying the money in advance and by utilising their money the houses are constructed. The only rider is that the authority while escalating the price should not act arbitrarily. 5. It has been submitted by the counsel for the opp. parties that the persons opting for self-financing scheme are paying the money in advance and by utilising their money the houses are constructed. On the other hand, for constructing the houses for the purpose of persons opting for installment scheme, the Corporation has to obtain finance from other sources by incurring loan on payment of interest and, as such, while calculating installment higher interest is payable and the total amount payable is bound to be higher. It cannot be said that the aforesaid logic of the Board is arbitrary. Since a person opting for installment scheme has to pay much after the delivery of possession is effected and takes longer time to make the payment, it is implied that he has to pay more than the person making downright payment or than the person who has paid in advance. The ratio adopted by the opposite parties is reasonable and cannot be characterized as arbitrary. 6. So far as the payment of further interest is concerned, it has been clarified by the counsel for the opposite parties that the amount has been fixed keeping in view of the interest payable. However, if there is a default in payment of any installment, further interest shall be payable on such defaulted amount. 7. Subject so the aforesaid clarification, The writ application is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. 8. Writ application disposed of.