JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter ''the Board'') issued an advertisement for a residential scheme Garhi Thoriyan Beawar District Ajmer (hereinafter ''the Scheme'') in the year 2009 offering houses in various categories. The petitioner applied for a house in the HIG category, under application form No. 4667 and deposited the requisite application money. The Board vide letter dated 11-5-2010 directed the petitioner to deposit seed money of Rs. 3 lacs in three instalments of Rs. 1 lac each. In compliance therewith the petitioner deposited the requisite amount on 9-6-2010, 6-12-2010 and 86-2011 within the permissible time. 2. The Board admittedly constructed 59 houses in the HIG category in the scheme. It is also an admitted fact that there were only 55 applicants seeking allotment of houses in the HIG category. However for allotting specific houses to the applicants in the HIG category, a lottery was drawn by the Board on 11-10-2011. The petitioner''s name found place at Sr. No. 6 in the lottery so conducted and earmarked for him was house No. 4-H-10 in the HIG category of the scheme. About 51 of the 55 allottee''s in the scheme were then issued demand notices on 16-4-2012 indicating the total cost of the house allotted at Rs. 18,82,413/- and reckoning for the seed money deposited by them with interest thereon which was adjusted, the said allottee''s were directed to deposit Rs. 14,27,513/-within three months and take possession. 3. No demand notice was however issued to the petitioner. 4. On the Board being approached, the petitioner was informed that due to a H.T. Electricity line running over house No. 4-H-10 earmarked for the petitioner in the HIG category, construction thereof and two other similarly earmarked houses could not be completed and it was only on completion of construction of the said house, demand notice therefor would be issued. The petitioner claims to have approached the Board, albeit orally, that as there were 59 houses in the scheme and only 55 applicants were included in the lottery held on 11-10-2011, he may be allotted any of the four other vacant houses in the HIG category. (This is denied by the Board.) The petitioner''s case is that his request was not considered. (This is denied by the Board.) The petitioner''s case is that his request was not considered. Thereafter a demand notice in respect of house No. 4-H-10 earmarked for allotment to the petitioner came to be issued only on 13-2-2013 indicating a cost of Rs. 22,66,483/-, enhanced from Rs. 18,82,413/- at which other similarly placed 51 allottee''s in the lottery of 11-10-2011 were allotted the houses in the HIG category by the Board. 5. Aggrieved the petitioner approached the Board complaining of the arbitrary enhancement of the cost of the house allotted, i.e. No. 4- H-10 in the HIG category as against the cost of the houses allotted to other similarly placed 51 allottee''s, who had applied alongwith the petitioner and were the beneficiaries of the same allotment process through a lottery held on 11-10-2011. But to no avail. The petitioner in the circumstances under protest deposited the amount under demand notice dated 13-22013, towards the cost of the house, such that his liability on account of interest on the due amount would not accrue. 6. Subsequent to deposit of the amount under the demand notice dated 13-2-2013 which the petitioner asserted was arbitrary and discriminatory, the petitioner rushed pillar to post seeking refund of the excess amount charged from him as against the other similarly placed 51 allottee''s in the HIG category of the scheme. His case was that the delay in issuing demand notice dated 13-2-2013 for reason of house No. 4-H-10 not having been completed alongwith the other houses in the HIG category was attributable to the internal working of the Board and part of its responsibility as the vendor and not connected with any act or commission attributable to the petitioner for which he could be penalised by being required to pay a higher cost. The Board however stuck to its demand notice dated 13-2-2013 and the amount reflected therein charged from the petitioner for house No. 4-H-10 on the ground that the delay in completion of house No. 4-H-10, allotted to the petitioner was attributable to the failure of Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter ''the Nigam'') in removing the H.T. Electricity line over the parcel of land in the ownership of the Board on which the HIG house earmarked to the petitioner and two others were being built. The Board''s case was that it was not responsible for the delay in the completion of the house, and the construction of house No. 4-H-10 was completed as soon as it could be. It was thus entitled to calculate the cost of allotment as per the extant costing principles as applicable on the date of the completion of the house as no sooner the H.T. electric line was removed on 21-9-2012 by JVVNL, construction of the plot No. 4-H-10 was completed. Thus no illegality could be attached to the demand notice dated 13-2-2013 was the Board''s contention. 7. Hence this petition. 8. Mr. Sanjay Sharma, counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the case set in the petition and alleged arbitrariness and discrimination against the petitioner by the Board. He submitted that the petitioner is liable to be charged only the cost as charged from other similarly placed applicants in the HIG category with whom the petitioner was registered and successfully participated in the Board''s lottery. He submitted that the Board ought to have had the land over which the HIG category houses in its scheme were to be built free of all encumbrances and obstructions when it invited applications for the HIG category, prepared the lay out plan or in any event when it commenced construction. Mr. Sanjay Sharma submitted that the Board''s case shifting responsibility for delay in removal of H.T. Electricity line over the house in issue is a red herring as the petitioner had no privity of contract with JVVNL and was not concerned by its alleged delay in responding to Board and removing the H.T. Electricity lines over house No. 4-H-10. The Board had privity of contract with the petitioner and third party default as alleged, was foreign to the said contract and of no event. Mr. Sanjay Sharma submitted that as a state instrumentality the Board is obliged to adhere to fairness as a component of natural justice. In that it has failed in burdening the petitioner with the consequences of its own failures and inefficiencies. Instead using its dominant position, it arbitrarily expropriated excess amounts from the petitioner on its ipse dixit under the camouflage of its costing principles extant at the time of completion of the house earmarked for the petitioner, which in the facts of the case operate unjustly. Instead using its dominant position, it arbitrarily expropriated excess amounts from the petitioner on its ipse dixit under the camouflage of its costing principles extant at the time of completion of the house earmarked for the petitioner, which in the facts of the case operate unjustly. The Board''s inefficiencies and poor management of its obligations to the petitioner cannot be glossed over by such misdirection on its part. The Board''s costing principles for costing of house built by it are not an insurance for its own failures, submitted Mr. Sanjay Sharma. 9. Mr. Anuroop Singhi, counsel for the Board submitted that the construction of house No. 4-H-10 earmarked to the petitioner in the lottery of 11-10-2011 along with two others similarly earmarked houses for other two applicants in the said lottery could not be completed for the reason of a H.T. Electricity line running over the parcel of land over which they were being constructed. The Board pursued the JVVNL for removal of the said H.T. Electricity lines and it was only after removal of the said H.T. Electricity line some time in September, 2012 that the construction of house No. 4-H-10 and two other houses was completed in December, 2012. Demand notices for payment of the cost of the house were then calculated based on costing principles and rates extant on the date of completion of construction. 51 of the 59 houses in the HIG category in the scheme were earlier completed in the month of April, 2012. The cost therefore reflected in demand notice dated 13-2-2013 to the allottee''s was Rs. 18,82,413/- determined by applying extant rates to the costing principles. As the construction of the house No. 4-H-10 allotted to the petitioner was completed in December, 2012 demand notice dated 13-22013 was issued to the petitioner who was allotted the said house in the lottery of 11-102011, with reference to the revised rates applied to costing principles. The cost of the house allotted to the petitioner was revised as per rates in the month of July, 2012. Cost of houses to 51 others, part of the same lottery as the petitioner was, was based on prerevised rates as obtaining in April, 2012 as the said 51 houses were completed in April, 2012. No arbitrariness or discrimination against the petitioner on the demand notice to him thus can be made out in the facts obtaining. Cost of houses to 51 others, part of the same lottery as the petitioner was, was based on prerevised rates as obtaining in April, 2012 as the said 51 houses were completed in April, 2012. No arbitrariness or discrimination against the petitioner on the demand notice to him thus can be made out in the facts obtaining. It was submitted that as per the Board''s policy unequivocally applied without exception the cost payable for a house by the allottee is as determined by application of costing principles of the Board with reference to the rates obtaining at time of completion of the house allotted. Mr. Anuroop Singhi submitted that at no point of time the petitioner made any request for allotment of another vacant house in the HIG category of the scheme as available with the Board. The case now set up is an afterthought, he submitted. 10. Heard. Considered. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner along 54 others had applied for allotment of a house in the HIG category in the scheme of the Board. It is also not in dispute that the Board had advertised 59 houses in the HIG category of the scheme for which only 55 applicants were available in the lottery held on 11-10-2011 for earmarking specific houses to each of the applicants. House No. 4-H- 10 was earmarked for the petitioner, who subsequently paid seed money for the house as demanded by the Board. The construction of the house was Board''s responsibility toward the petitioner. As was its responsibility to treat all 55 applicants in the HIG category of the scheme at par. The construction of the houses was in the Board''s hand. Coordination with other agencies as with JVVNL was its obligation. Planning of the scheme was its burden alone. Once applications for allotment were invited and lottery drawn, the allottee''s constituted a homogeneous class entitled to be equally treated-all having paid seed money as demanded. Obstructions in construction were for the Board to assess in advance and it was for it to take all clearances. Even thereafter, delays in the completion of some houses earmarked to various applicants successful in the lottery as the petitioner, should have cautioned the Board to for see variations in the cost of the houses for reason of delay in completion of their construction. Even thereafter, delays in the completion of some houses earmarked to various applicants successful in the lottery as the petitioner, should have cautioned the Board to for see variations in the cost of the houses for reason of delay in completion of their construction. It should have in fairness offered to re-site the allottee''s whose earmarked houses were facing potential delays in construction and resultant higher cost on completion. The Board''s omission to do so even while four of the 59 vacant HIG houses in the scheme were available for being offered to the petitioner was arbitrary. The cost of the house No. 4-H-10 allotted to the petitioner under the demand notice dated 13-2-2013 i.e. Rs. 22,66,483/- was substantially higher than the cost of house i.e. Rs. 18,82,413/- in the same HIG category to 51 other similarly placed applicants. I find no force in the Board''s passing the responsibility to JVVNL in delaying removal of the H.T. Electricity line. The petitioner has nothing to do with JVVNL. Invoking costing principles of the Board where the cost of the house allotted is calculated as per extant rates of construction/land on the date of completion in the instant case would be, in the facts of the case, wholly unjust and iniquitous. It would benefit the Board from its own wrong. If the Board''s defence is mechanically accepted it would provide a premium to its own mismanagement and inefficiencies and allow such mismanagement/inefficiency in creating a classification amongst a homogeneous group of applicants which would be devoid of any intelligible differentia. I am of the considered view that if there were insurmountable difficulties in completing the construction of house in the HIG category earmarked to the petitioner, the Board should have offered any of the other 4 vacant houses in the HIG category of its scheme to the petitioner. Not so having done, the Board cannot be allowed to take refuge in the costing principles and rate revised in the meantime to the detriment of the petitioner and his fundamental right to equality and fairness. 12. Consequently, I would allow the petition. Not so having done, the Board cannot be allowed to take refuge in the costing principles and rate revised in the meantime to the detriment of the petitioner and his fundamental right to equality and fairness. 12. Consequently, I would allow the petition. It is held that as part of homogeneous group of applicants in the Board''s Scheme in the HIG category who participated and was successful in the lottery held on 11-10-2011, the petitioner is entitled to pay the same cost/price for the house allotted as paid by the other similarly placed 51 allottee''s in the HIG category of the Board''s scheme. The petitioner has, under coercion of being charged interest in the event of failure to pay as per demand notice 13-2-2013, already complied and paid the whole amount. The Board is directed to refund the excess amount, deposited by the petitioner for house No. 4-H-10 pursuant to the demand notice dated 13-2-2013, over the amount reflected in demand notices to other 51 allottee''s similarly placed with the petitioner-except to the extent otherwise justified on an independent ground such as of sitement if disclosed at the time of the lottery dated 11-10-2011. The difference as directed be refunded to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. The petition stands accordingly allowed.