JUDGMENT By the Court.—The only controversy involved in this petition is whether the respondent authorities are right in enhancing the price of the house allotted to the petitioners in the year 1994 as per the notification originally made. 2. It appears that by virtue of a notification issued in the year 1994 applications were invited for allotment of houses that were actually slated to be constructed. Alongwith that notification, certain terms and conditions were also framed and only those aspirants who were in agreement with those terms and conditions could have made application for allotment and the petitioners were amongst such aspirants/applicants. The initial conditions were partly complied with by the petitioners. Later on, because of various constraints including the financial one, the respondent authorities could not proceed with the construction of the houses under the Scheme. At the same time, petitioners also committed default in complying with the terms and conditions of the contract. Therefore, what is obvious is that from both sides there were some lapses. 3. Notwithstanding this past event, in the year 1998, the petitioners approached the respondent authorities seeking allotment of the house under the orders of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 7541 of 1998. Consequently, the respondent authorities offered allotment of incomplete constructed house, obviously on ‘as is where is’ basis by order dated 1.8.1998. Further the price was fixed at Rs. 2,04,035/-. Obviously, there is hike of about 65000/- over and above the estimated price originally fixed in the year 1994. We reiterate the expression “estimated price” only to make it clear that there was no definite price fixed for all times to come. 4. Challenging the said hike on various grounds, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Sri Devbrat Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent authorities are supposed to construct the house for public purpose and there should not be any failure in execution of the said public purpose and only because of delay in making construction the petitioners were put to great loss and even in the year 1998, the petitioners were forced to accept the allotment of houses on ‘as is where is’ basis as hapless aspirants with the fond hope of having their own roofs. It is further contended that such public policy has to be complied with in all fours by the respondent authorities and failure in this regard on the part of the respondent authorities has resulted in great financial loss to the petitioners owing to the hike in the “estimated price” as was originally fixed. 6. On the other hand, Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities contended that as per terms and conditions of the contract, the respondent authorities have reserved the right to enhance the price depending upon the prevailing circumstances as and when required. It is further contended that the originally fixed price of Rs. 1,41,000/- was only a tentative/estimated cost and, therefore, the same was not a final figure for all times to come. 7. In view of above, the only point for consideration before us is as to whether the proposed hike in the price of the house on ‘as is where is’ basis, was justified or not. 8. As was already noticed above, the price originally fixed as Rs. 1,41,000/- in the year 1994 alongwith the notification, was a tentative/estimated price depending upon the prevailing cost of construction and various other related circumstances prevalent at that point of time and precisely, that is the reason why the respondent authorities have reserved the right to enhance the value of the house in future depending upon various other circumstances prevailing at that particular point of time or points of time. In other words, from time to time, having regard to various factors, the instrumentality of the State, i.e., the respondent authorities in the present case, have reserved their right to enhance the price from time to time while performing its social and statutory obligation to provide housing facility by way of undertaking developmental activities to the needy at an affordable price at the relevant point of time. 9. In our considered view, since it is the prerogative of the constructing authority to enhance the price from time to time depending upon various conditions prevailing at the relevant point of time or times, this Court cannot enter into the domain of such power of the constructing authority. 10. Further more, there is a contract by way of terms and conditions between the aspirant/applicant and the respondent authorities, which were also notified and the said fact is not in dispute. 10. Further more, there is a contract by way of terms and conditions between the aspirant/applicant and the respondent authorities, which were also notified and the said fact is not in dispute. As was also pointed out the first and the foremost condition amongst such terms and conditions is the reservation of right to enhance the price in future after the notification of allotment, of course, subject to fulfilment of the terms and conditions before the actual allotment. 11. Further there was failure on the part of respondent authorities in raising the construction within the stipulated period or reasonable period but at the same time there was some laches on the part of the petitioners as well. However, these issues cannot be taken into account nor can be gone into by this Court because of the fact that in the year 1998, when the petitioners approached the respondent authorities under the orders of this Court, the respondent authorities had offered allotment of unfinished constructed house on ‘as is where is’ basis on enhanced price. It is not only the parties that are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract but also it is for this Court to see that the parties are bound by such terms and conditions of the contract and rather this Court cannot permit any deviation from such terms and conditions unless and until such terms and conditions are absolutely irrational and arbitrary. Even the said question also cannot be gone into when the parties have mutually agreed with the terms and conditions of the contract and once there is an agreement, both the parties are bound by such terms and conditions of the contract and the Court has no role to interpret or suggest the parties to deviate from such terms and conditions of the contract. 12. However, as the things stand now, is the fact that the petitioners having not been satisfied with the hike in the price of allotment of the house, has filed the present writ petition which is pending before this Court for the past 13 years. 12. However, as the things stand now, is the fact that the petitioners having not been satisfied with the hike in the price of allotment of the house, has filed the present writ petition which is pending before this Court for the past 13 years. Further having regard to the offer made by the respondent authorities in the year 1998, in fact, we would have directed the respondent authorities to consider the allotment of unfinished accommodation to the petitioners on the price offered in the year 1998 but again the same question would crop up as regards the right of the respondent authorities to enhance the price. Since for the last 13 years the matter is pending in this Court without any interim direction nor there was any acceptance by the respondent authorities to offer the allotment of house on the same old price, therefore, as per terms and conditions of the contract, it is still open for the respondent authorities to go for any further hike. 13. Of course, there was no such proposed hike from the learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities but he has expressed his view and contemplation that the respondent authorities may go for further hike in future having regard to the longivity of pendency of this petition before this Court. Therefore, it is always for the respondent authorities to decide the question of hike, if any, keeping in view all relevant circumstances from 1998 till today and also fix the price of construction in accordance with the bye-laws, rules and policy, as the case may be, prevailing as on today, covering this field and in this connection it is needless to say that the petitioners have to make a fresh representation to the authority concerned to consider his case for allotment and it is for the concerned authority to fix the price and decide the representation with a pragmatic approach. It is further directed that as and when any fresh representation is made by the petitioners, the same shall be considered and disposed by the concerned respondent authority within a reasonable period of time, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation alongwith a certified copy of this order. 14. With the above observation/direction, the present petition stands disposed of finally. —————