JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri D.N. Dubey along wit Sri R.A. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri A.K. Misra, learned Counsel for the respondent. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2. Short case of the petitioners is that they were allotted separate flats in Kama Vaishali Housing Scheme of the Ghaziabad Development Authority sometime between 1995 to 1997 by separate allotment orders, in which the estimated cost of the flat was shown as Rs. 70,000/-. The petitioners were required to deposit the cost in instalments and as per the allotment order, on deposit of 70% of the cost, possession was to be given to them. The further condition was that the allottee could deposit the entire amount in one go, in which case no interest would be payable by the allottee. All the petitioners opted for the latter offer mentioned in the allotment order and deposited the entire amount in one go and got the possession of the flats immediately, meaning thereby that the cost, which was stated in the allotment order to be Rs. 70,000/- had been deposited by each of the petitioners before getting the possession of their respective flats. 3. Now, by means of separate orders which have been passed in December, 2002 in each individual case of all the petitioners, a further demand of Rs. 24,810 has been raised as according to the respondents, the final cost of the flats in question has been determined as Rs. 94,810/-. These orders are challenged in this writ petition. 4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after lapse of nearly seven years, such orders have been passed requiring the petitioners to pay a substantially higher amount. Further it has been stated in para 11 of the writ petition that in a similar case of one Sri Mahesh Chandra Jiyal, an identically situated flat was allotted on 20.2.1995 to said Sri Jiyal in which the final cost of the said flat was determined as 71,450/- and no further amount has been demanded from the said person thereafter. The petitioners being identically placed, the action of the respondents in raising a further demand of Rs. 24,810/- from the petitioners is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. 5. The petitioners being identically placed, the action of the respondents in raising a further demand of Rs. 24,810/- from the petitioners is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. 5. Sri A.K. Misra, learned Counsel for the respondent has, however, justified the passing of the impugned orders and submitted that the allotment order only mentioned an estimated cost and the respondent authority always had the right to fix the final cost and realise the difference from the petitioners. He further submitted that at the time of taking possession, all the petitioners had given their affidavits to the effect that whatever difference in the estimated cost and the final cost would be, they would pay the same. 6. Sri Misra has relied on the decision in the case of Bareilly Development Authority and others v. Ajai Pal Singh and others, 1989 (2) SCC 116 and Bareilly Development Authority v. Vrinda Gujarati and others, 2004 (1) SCC 606, wherein the Apex Court has held that such power to fix the final cost later is there with the authority. The contention thus is that since in the present case, the development authority has the power to fix the final cost and the respondents have given an affidavit that they would abide by the same and pay the difference of the final cost and estimated cost, hence they would be liable to pay the same. 7. We do not have doubt with regard to the power of the Development Authority to fix the final cost of the flat, even after the allotment of the flat but the question is as to whether the same can be exercised on the whims and fancies of the respondent authority or they have to justify the enhancement of such cost. 8. In the facts of the present case, we are not much impressed by the submissions and justification given on behalf of the respondents. No explanation whatsoever has been given in the counter-affidavit for the basis on which the price has been enhanced and the final cost has been fixed. In our opinion, the same cannot be done merely because they have power to do so, even though there may be no basis or justification for the same. Even otherwise, in another identically situated case of Mahesh Chandra Jiyal, cost was fixed at Rs. 71,450/- in which no further recovery is sought to be made from the said allottee. In our opinion, the same cannot be done merely because they have power to do so, even though there may be no basis or justification for the same. Even otherwise, in another identically situated case of Mahesh Chandra Jiyal, cost was fixed at Rs. 71,450/- in which no further recovery is sought to be made from the said allottee. Such specific averments have been made in para 11 of the writ petition, to which there is no specific reply given by the respondents. As such, the respondents have not been able to justify their action of fixation of such high final cost and that too after nearly seven years of allotment and payment of the entire amount, after which possession had been given to the allottees. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the recovery, as is to be made from the petitioners with regard to the enhanced cost, cannot be justified and is thus quashed. The other amounts which are required to be paid by the petitioners, as mentioned in the impugned orders, which would be lease amount and other charges would however be payable by the petitioners. 10. Writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ————