ORDER: The petitioners in the above writ petitions are allottees of houses by the respondent-Board. While the petitioner in W.P.No. 16245 of 2001 is working in Central Government, other petitioners are working in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The third respondent alleging that the petitioners are not regular in paying the instalments either towards the principal or interest thereon, by proceedings dated 282.2001, called upon the first petitioner to pay the entire interest and by proceedings dated 6.8.2001 ordered eviction of other petitioners, for non payment of dues. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners con- tends that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1666, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 16.12.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.174, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 7.2.1991 which confers certain benefits for payment of cost of the flat/ house and the interest on monthly instalments to the Government servants. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner complains that the respondents had not furnished the details of the dues from each petitioner towards the principal and the interest thereon and therefore, seeks to quash the proceedings dated 28.2.2001 and 6.8.2001, impugned in W.P.Nos. 16245 and 16246 to 16248 of 2001 respectively on the ground that the same are arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory between the employees of the State Government on one side and the employees of the Central Government and Board on the other side, violating Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. 4.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Board invited my attention to G.O.Ms.No.466, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 25.4.1995, which clarifies that G.O.Ms.No.174, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 7.2.1991 is applicable only to the allottees who are Tamil Nadu Government servants and not to the Central Government employees or the Board or Corporation or local body employees. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Board also invited my attention to the order of this Court in W.P.No. 19302 of 1999, dated 6.12.1999 wherein G.O.Ms.No.466, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 25.4.1995 has been upheld. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent- Board also undertakes to furnish all the details with regard to the dues towards principal as well as the interest to be paid by the petitioners within four weeks from the date of receipt of representation from the petitioner, if they are so advised. 7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 8. 7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 8. This Court, by order in W.P.No. 19302 of 1999, dated 5.12.1999 while upholding G.O.Ms. No.466, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 25.4.1995, held that the said G.O. is passed at the instance of the Housing Board clarifying that the concessions granted in G.O.Ms.No.174, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 7.12.1991 is applicable only to a particular category; the Government employees and the Board employees, therefore, cannot be categorised as one category; the Government, after careful consideration of the issue and applying its mind, found that G.O.Ms.No. 174, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 7.2.1991 is applicable only to the State Government employees but not to the Central Government employees or the Board or Corporation or local body employees and therefore, employees of the Central Government and the Board, Corporation and local body stand in a different category and the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit of G.O.Ms.No. 174, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 7.2.1991, as a matter of right: 9. The above reason equally applies to the benefit sought for by the petitioners on the basis of G.O.Ms.No. 1666, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 16.12.1988. Therefore I am also of the considered opinion that the benefits conferred either under G.O.Ms.No. 1666, Housing & Urban Development Department dated 16.12.1988 or under G.O.Ms.No. 174, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 7.2.1991 are purely concessions given to the employee of the State Government as a policy decision taken by the Government and hence, it may not be proper for this Court to interfere with such policy decisions. Therefore, as held in the order in W.P.No. 19302 of 1999 dated 6.12.1990, the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of G.O.Ms.No. 1666, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 16.12.1988 and G.O.Ms.No. 174, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 7.2.1991. 10. Therefore, as held in the order in W.P.No. 19302 of 1999 dated 6.12.1990, the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of G.O.Ms.No. 1666, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 16.12.1988 and G.O.Ms.No. 174, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 7.2.1991. 10. With regard to the second limb of the argument on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents are not furnishing the details of the dues either towards the principal or interest thereon, it is suffice to permit the petitioners to make representation to the respondents within four weeks from today, mentioning the details required by them in detail, which shall be sent by registered post with acknowledgment due and on receipt of such representation, respondents are directed to furnish necessary details to the petitioners informing the actual dues payable by them towards principal and the interest thereon separately, within four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation". On hearing from the respondents, it is open for the petitioners to approach respondents for any concession as to the interest if they are so advised and the respondents shall decide the matter on merits, as per law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the details of amounts. If the petitioners are still aggrieved by the final decision of the respondents, it is open for them to agitate in appropriate forum. On the other hand, if the petitioners settles the entire amount, respondents shall register their flat/ house and complete the entire transaction within three months from the date of final settlement. 11. However, it is made clear that they are not entitled to approach this Court invoking Art.226 of the Constitution of India as it is well-settled in law that such disputed questions of fact as to the dues payable towards either principal or interest cannot be gone into under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. W.M.P. No.24147 to 24150 of 2001 are closed.