$-* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI w.P.(o 8193/2010 & CM 2111412010 BAWANA FACTORIES WELFARE ASSOCIATION REGD & ANR Tt'ough: Mr. Rajan K. chour.ri; *LTitioners Mr. Rakesh Kumar. Advocate. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent . Through: Mr. L.K. G*g, Advocate for R-l & 2/GNCTD. Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Ms. Renuka Arora and Ms. Neha Mittal- Advocates for R-3/DSIIDC. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER L4.r2.20L0 1. A detailed order has been passed today in W.P.(C) No. 714I of 2010 (Nurender Kumur v. DSIIDQ and batgh, including the present writ petition. The Registry is directed to place on the record of this petition a certified copy of the order. 2. The writ petition and the pending application stand dismissed in terms of the said order. DECEMBER 14,2010 akg S. MURALIDHAR, J. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified , tl ti'q. -I IN #60-66 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI {a ..... Petitioner NARIJNDERKUMARAND ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. T.A. Francis and Mr. Mahesh KatYaYen, Advocates VE1'SUS DELHI STATI] INDUSTIUAL ANI) INFRASTUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPOI{ATION LTD.AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. AnusuYa Salwan wiflr Ms. Renuka Arora and Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocates for R-I/DSIIDC' Ms. Megha Bharara forMs. Ruchi l Sindhwani, Advocate for R-2/GNCTD' w.P.(O 763212010 & cM 19839i2010 VINOD KUMAR ""' Petitiober Through: Mr. Girish Aggarwal with Ms. Mugdha PandeY, Aclvocate. VETSUS I-I-IE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES & ORS..... Itcspondetrts Through: Ms. AnusuYa Salwan wilh Ms. Renuka Arora and Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocates for I{-2 & 3/DSIIDC' None for R-1/. w.P.rc\ 7768120L0 & cN.I20L39l20l0 BAWANA II, BI-IORGARI-I INDUS TRIAL I{bLOCATI ON PI-O'[ OWNEI{'S AS SOCIATION TI-IR ITS PRESIDENT KAPIL KUI\4AR Through: Mr. Prasoon I(urnar with Mr. Ravi Choudhary, Ms. I(anchan Bala and Mr" Deepak" Chander Pal, Advocates' VEISUS GOVT OIi NC'I & ORS ..... Itespondents Through: Mr. Nawal I(shole Jha, Advocate for R-l/GNCI'D. Ms. AnusuYa Salwan with W.P.(C) Nos. 7141 of 2070 batch Page 7 of 77 7a I Ms. Itenuka Arora and Ms. Neha P Mittal, Advocates for R-2/DSIIDC. w.P.(o 8086i2010 & cM 20848/2010 PVC COMPOI.]ND & FOOTWEAR MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (REGD) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Susheel Bharliya and Mr. Pranar', Advocates for M'. Sunil Goei, Advocate , V9lSUSr DSIIDC LTD & OI{S "" ResPondents Through: Ms. AnusuYa Salwan with Ms. I{enuka Arora and Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocates for R-I/DSIIDC. Mr. L.K. Garg, Advocate for R-2 & 3/GNCTD' w.P.(O 8097/2010 & cM 20864/2010 BTIARDWAJ PACI(AGING INDUSTRIES & ORS .... PEtitiONETS Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava with Mr. Ritesh Thusu, Advocate VEISUS DELFIISTATEINDUSTIUAL&INFRASTRUCTT]RE DEVELOPMEN'I' CORPOI{ATION LIMITED & ANR ..... Itespondents Through: Ms. Anusuya Salwan with Ms. Renuka Arora and Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocates for R-1/DSIIDC' Mr. Arnitabh Marwah, Advocate for R-2IGNCTD. w.P.(O 8193/2010 & cM 2111412010 BAWANA FACTORIES WELFARE ASSOCIATION REGD & ANR ""' Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia with Mr. Rakesh I(urnar, AdYocate' vel'sus , GOVT OF. NCT OF. DELHI & ORS I{ESPOTTdEITT Through: NIr. L.K. Garg, Advocate for R-l & 2/GNCTD' Ms. AnusuYa Salwan with W.P.(C) Nos. 7747 of 2070 batch Page 2 of 17 1 Ms. Renuka Arora and Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocates for R-3/DSIIDC. and w.P.(o s230/2010 & cM 21184/2010 RAJNI & ORS VEl'SUS GOVT OF NCT OF DELI-II & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Varun Mehlawat, Advocate' ..... ItesPondents Through: Ms. Megha Bharara for Ms' Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for R- 1 /GNCTD' Ms. AnusuYa Salwan with Ms. Renuka Arola and Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocates for R-2IDSIIDC. COnAM: JUSTICE S. MURAX-'IDHAn 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? X 2.'tobe referred to the n"p-t"' or not? /' ./ 3. Whether the judgrnent should be reporled i' Qigesfl V ORDER 14.12.2010 1. This is the second batch of writ petitions challenging the dcrnand raisecl by the Delhi state Industrial & Infrastructure Development corporation Ltd. ('DsIIDC',) requiring the Petitibners to deposit the cost of the plots allottecl to them ad-measuring 100 sq' ln' in Sectof Ii' Bawana-Il at Bhorgath @Rs' 15,5661- per sq' m' 2. The earlier writ petitions we'e disrnissed by this Coutl on 26tl' October' 20IO lw.P.(c) 7143 of 2010 - Mohcl Jaan v. DSIIDCI' I'Iowevet'' counsel for the Petitioners in this batch have stated that sotne of the grounds that they wish to urge wele not considered by this Court ou the W.P,(C) Nos. 714L of 2070 batch Page 3 of L7 g earlier occasion. 3. It is first subrnitted that the cost of Rs. 15,5661'- per sq. m. as inclicatecl in the demand letter dated 17tl' September 2010 shows that a sutn of Rs. 4,259.10 per sq.m. js on account of 50oh of gross cost added as pel the government poiicy for light industry, for cross-subsidy towards categories such as housing for economically weaker sections ('EWS')' It is submitted that the Petitioners are themselves displaced persons inastnuch as they wete earlier rurning industrial units prior to 19tl' April 1996 in nou-conforming areas and were being rehabilitated pursuant to a relocation scheme. They could not be expected to bear the cost of cross- subsidy towards categories such as the EWS' 4. Secondly, it is submitted that this element. of the cost was never commnLicated to the Petitioners either when the applications were inviteci in 1996 0r even when the allotrnents were ,ttud" in 2006. Tbe omnibus clause in the allotrnelt letter stating that the cost was 'tentative' could not be open-ended. According to the Petitioners, this did not permit tire DSIIDC t. add an element of cost which was not originaliy envisaged while indicating the tentative cost to each of thern. Reliance is placed otl tlre debision of a Full Bench of this Court in P.I/. Vernm v' (Jrion cf Inelio AIR 1985 Dethi 417, which was upheld by the Supleme Coutt' and tlre decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Developntent Autltority 'i'' roint Acti,on comndttee, Allottee of sFS Flsts AIR 2008 sc 1343 ' It ts W.P.(C) Nos.7L47 of 20L0 batch Page 4 of 77 q \ fuither submittecl that the stand of the Respondent DSIIDC that they were rnerely abiding by the policy of the Government of National capital Teffitory of Delhi ('GNCTD') and hdd no choice'in the ntatter, was not a satisfactory explanation. It is pointed out that neither in the Bawana-I Scherne, nor in the Narela Scheme, was any element of cross-subsidy towarcls EWS housing sought to be added to the cost of the industrial plots. Referring to certain obse1ations of a Division Bench of this Coult in DsIIDC v. Yaslrysl Msclsn 145 (200s) DLT 642 (DB), it is pointed or'rt that even where the cost of the plots in Narela was detelmined at ll-s' 24,0001- per sq. m., the Ews cross-subsidy was not sought to be r""overed fi om those plot-holders' 5. Thirdly, it is submiited that there were arouncl 23,000 persons rvho faced displacernent on account of their running units in non-confbrming areas pr.ior- to 19tl' Apri I 1996. Nearly 19,000 were allotted alteruati'e plots in different areas including Bawanh-I and Narela' 'fhey were llot chargecl any component of cross-sgbsidy towards Ews housing' It is, therefore, subrnitted that the Petitioners, belongilg to the salne class' cannot be discrininatecl against and be made to pay towards cross-subsidy for. the EWS housi'g. It is submitted that while the petitioners a.r'g prepared to pay the cost as indicatecl in the first demand raised in 2006" tlre present cost of Rs. 15,5661- pel sq. ln..was double the said cost aud was clearly arbitrary aud exolbitant. Even if they wele extended assistance with loans fi'om the Delhi Financial corporation ('DIrC') and W.P.(C) Nos. 7747 of 2070 batch Page 5 of 77 other financial institutions, them. \o \ the financial burden would be too heavy on 6. In another set of petitions, it was submitted that charging Rs. 1000A pel sq. 111. towards. o & M cost (corpus Fund) was also arbitrary aitci unreasonable. In an earlier communication in response to an applicaticir filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act') the Respondenl DSIIDC maintained that they were charging 2.5o/o of the land val'"re towards annual maintenance apart frorn charging 2's%towards the annual ground reirt. This would arnount to charging twice for 'rai'te'ancc. Tirc- Petitionels have also questioned the charging by the DSIIDC of intelest fi'onr thetn at lBYo per alxlum for the delayed payrnent while'paying to tlrem interest only at I0o/o per annuln for the amounts already deposited.by thern with the DSIIDC. It is fuilher pointed out that the interest was being paicl only for the period l't April 2009 to 31't March 20Il whereas tlie amounts were deposited fi'ogr 1996 onwards. In this counection, reliance has been placed on the juclgrnent of the suprerne court in vid'eocott Properties Ltcl. v. Dr. Bhslchctnclra Laboratories AIR 2004 sc 1787' T.Inthe reply filed by the DSIIDC in w.P.(C)7768 of 2010 (which repiy is common to all the writ petitions) the basis for charging the compotrent for cross-subsicly towards category such as EWS has been explained'in parallasunder: "'fhat during the iast 3-4 W.P.(C). Nos.7L47 of 20L0 batch years, the answering respondent has Page 6 of 1"7 :l : \ completed the development in Bhorgarh industrial alea and aftei' taking into account the enhanced land compensations and enhanced project costs, the costs per sq'rit of saleable area has been calculated as Rs.8158/- per sq.mt in Financial Year 2008-09' The rnatter was placed before the Government, and the govetntneut, after taking into consideration the cost determination method adopted by DDA and the future maintenance needs of the industliai afea, apploved the following cost: a) Gloss cost per sq.rnt. in 2008-09 b) Cost of capital @10% p'a' for 2009-II c) 50Yo ofgloss cost added as per Govt' Policy for Light industry (for cross subsidies towards categories such as EWS) Rs.8518.10 Its. 1788.80 Rs. 4259.10 Rs. 1000.00 Rs.15566.00" d) e) Future O & M cost (CorPus Fund) Cost per sq. mt. (a+b+c+d) 8. A copy of the governmell Circular dated 17tr' August 2010 .otifui'$ the rate for the Industrial Estate - Bhorgarh at Bawana-Il has been enclosecl. It is poilted out that a Comrnittee was constituted comprising the Additional Commissionel of Industries (GNCTD) as Chairtnan, the Deputy commissioner of Industries (GNCTD), chief Mauager (Relocation), DsIIDC, Deputy Financial Advisor (works), DSIIDC anct Executive Engineer' (Bhorgarh), DSIIDC. The Cbmrnittee detelmined the cost based on the expenditure incurred and projected by the DSIIDC' The committee noted that the cost of the plots had increased 'ti'orn the initial estirnate of Rs. 5,1501- pel sq. m. to about Rs. 8,5201- pet sq' m' due to various factors such as itlprovement!of street ligfiting, inclusion of 60 rn' wide MP Road for better connectivity, construction of an underground W.P.(C) Nos. 7747 of 2070 batch Page 7 of 77 rl t/ reservoir a1d effluents pumping station, increase i1 the cost index. ilcrease i1 the Delhi Jal Board charges and in increase in electrification costs etc. fhis Committee also took note of the problems of rnaintenance faced by industrial estates set up earlier and suggested the setting up of a corpus for a long-teln maintenance fund. Accordingly, it was suggestec! that Rs. 1,000/- per sq. m. should be charged fiom each allottee fo1 creation of the fund so that it may generate a corpus of Rs' 75 crores' A copy of the minutes of the Committee has been enclosed with the affidavit. 9. It appears that the rationale for including a component towards cross- subsicly for EWS housing was based on the prevalent plactice of tire DDA. In paras 15 ancl 16 of the affidavit, it has been explained as under: "15. That the multiplier of 1.5 applied for Bhorgarh is the same as that applied by the DDA for plots under 'Light Industt'y' category in the size range of 50 sq. rneter to 400 sq. rheter' The multiplier' of 1.5 h.as been applied as per the directions ancl approval of the Governrnelt. The amount so generated is to be used towards tlon- targeted cross subsidy for development of Ecolomically Weaker Sections (EwS) lrorrsing, JJ & squatters, settlement, etc. i6. That the DDA has beel applyilg the multiplier at least from lgg2 onward. In thi's regard, the documents obtained fiom DDA toward costing of Dwarka Project in 1992 and Tikri I{alan Plastic Bazaa in 1999; and sotne notifications of Predetermined Land Rates issued by the Ministry of urban Development aud Poverty Alleviation, Gover'runent of India in 2009 and 2010 are enclosed as Annexures-C (Colly) respectively' Page I of L7 ) W.P.(C) Nos. 774L of 20L0 batch v The perusal of DDA land costing methodolbgy (Annexule cl) wonld clearly reveal that in Dwarka Ploject in 1992, against the break-even rate of Rs. 1100.46 fer sq.mt., a higher rate of Rs. I375.54 has been charged for industrial land, whereas lower rate of Rs.550.22 per sq.mt. has been charged for EWS and JJ & Squatters settlement. Lower rates have also'been chalged fiom some other categori'es like LIG, charitable institutions, and utilities. sirnilariy, DDA Resolution of |ggg (Annexure C2) notifies the rate of industrial plots of 300 sq. meters and 495 sq' meters as Rs' ' 2305 per sq. rneter and lts. 2689 pel sq. meter against the Bleak Even Rate of Rs. 1536 per sq' meter; whereas much lower/nominal costs have been fixed for lands for police statiou, fire station, health services, utilities, etc' The Goverrunent of India, Ministry of .urban Development notifications {Amexufes C3 (Co11y)} of pre-determiled rates for Plastic Bazaar, Tikri Kalan for year 2008-09 and 2009-10 also apply rnultiplier of 1.5 for 'Light Industry' plots of 300 sq' meters in size. Fr.om the above it would be kindly seen that the policy of applying multiplier is reasonable and is in use for a long time'" 10. It is explainecl that the DSIIDC did not apply the above multiplier oi' 1.5 for Bawana-I plols since it had a low market.price in the initial yeals o[ development. A number of eligible applicalts had opted oqt of those allotrr.ents and sought refund of the earnest money deposited' Flowever' the exper.ience as regards the Bhorgarh plots has been diffelent' It is pointed out that the rnarket rate for the sale disposal of the land and for charging unearned increase al Bawana (Ilhorgarh) has continuously W.P.(C) Nos- 7741" of 201.0 bdtch Page 9 of 7'7 I' \\ increased as under: Rate of Industrial land at Bawana (RuPees Per square rneter) ' 6,720 8,400 10,080 27,400 30,140 33,I54 36,469" "Year , 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-r0 2010-1 1 I 1. It is further stated as under: .,It is peftinent to mention that the market rate for industrial lanclnotifieclbythegovernmentfor20l0-llforBawana Industrial Area is Rs. 36,4691- per square tneter' Therefore the rnarket rate for Bhorgalh may be taken as Rs. 36,4691- per sq' meter at par with the rate of nearby estates. compared to the rnarket tates, the allotment made by the respondent @ Rs'15,5661-persq.meterisstilltnuchontlrelowersideandis reasonable. Even the circle rate determined by the Govenrment of NC I of Delhi is approximately I\s'27 '4001-;' t2. ThePetitioners have, however, disputed the above figures' This courL has no means, in a petition under Article 226 of the constitution' to' determine the above disputed question of. fact' There is no basis for tl'e court to doubt the correctness of the details set out by the DSIIDC in its affidavit as regards prevalent market rate and circle lates for plots in Bawana Industrial Area (Bhorgarh)' W.P.(C) Nos.7747 of 2070 batch Page L0 of L7 ,/ Zr Y) 13. On a consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the' parties, one of the first questions that this courl is called upoll to considet' is whether the r.ecovery of 50% of the gl'oss cost for light industries f'or cross-subsidy towards EWS housing, atnounting to Rs. 4259j0 per sq' 1r., in telrns of the policy of the GNCTD, is albitrary or urueasonable ip the context of Article 14 of.the Constitution? This Court finds that tire decision to charge Rs. 4259.10 as cross-subsidy towards categories such as EWS housing is based on a government policy' The allotment letters were issued to about 4615 units in Bhorgarh in 2005 and 2006' It was clearly indicated at that time that the cost per plot was Rs' 5,1501- per sci: m. but also that it was a tentative one. The precise clause in the allottnent letter in thiS regard read as under: , "The tentative cost of the plot is Rs. 5150/- per sqllare tneter' whichissubjecttochangedependingupontheactualcostof development of the industrial plot and directions issued by the Government of Delhi in this regard' 'l .: This is to inform yog that tire cost indicated above is te'tative' The allottee will be liable to pay any increase in the cost of the plot due to any reason(s) whatsoevet'" 14. There were two distinct caveats in the above clause. The first was that the cost was iiself tentative. It depended on the actual bost of development of the industrial plot. 'fhe second was that it also depended on the directions issued by the GNCTD. The addin g of 50% of the gross cost' of cross-subsidy IbI IIWS housing to the cost of the plots is relateable to the W.P.(C) Nos.7747 of 2070 batch Page 77 of 77 \b clirections issued by the GNCTD. In view of the above clause ur allotment letter, the Petitioners cannot claim to have been taken surlrrise on account of the inclease in the cost on the above Scole' " 15. In this connection, this Court would like to observe that there is a clear distinctiol between the facts in the case of P. N' Verma v' Union of Inditt and the present case. Para 4 of the judgment in P.N' Vermu sets out tire relevalt clause in those cases as regards cost of the SFS flats' The said clause reads as under:- "The estimated cost of flats on each floor would be announced wheneverspecifiedschemeshavebeenpreparedtakingirrto consideration the location of each scheine, specifications and design of flats, cost of construction prevailing at the time of the execution of the scheme, fluctuations in other cost factors'" 16. It is plain that in the above clause in P.N. Verntu, no caveat was entered that the cost would increase on account of the directions issued by govel.nmerrt florn time to tirne. Secorrdly, those. wefe SFS flats and no parallel can be drawn with a schetne like the present otle involving allotment of industrial plots. For the same reason, the judgment of the supreme cgurl in DDA v. Joint Actiott corttnrittee is also distinguishable' 17. The decision of the DSIIDC, not to recovel' from the allottees of plol's at Bawana-I or Narela, any element of cross-subsidy towards EWS housing, is really a rnatter of policy. The DSIIDC would have hacl to the by W.P.(C) Nos.71'4L of 20L0 batch Page 72 of 77 w accorult for several factors including the way in which the market behaved on the earlier occasion. The view of the DSIIDC that, given the response of the allottees of plots in Bawana-I, it would not be advisable to increase fr*ther the cost of the plots by adding any element of Ews cross-snbsidy, calnot be said to be gnreasonable or arbitrary. The situation now is obvio*sly different. The figrres set out in the counter-affidavit of the DSIIDC show that there has been a marked increase in the rnarket rates of plots in Bawana-Il. The rate which was Rs. 10,080/- per sq. m' in2006-07 increased to Rs. 27,400 per sq. m. in 2007-09. The s'brnission that the Respondents by not adding an element of EWS cross-subsidy to the cost of the plots at Narela, where the market price was deterrnined at Rs.24,000 l- per se. ffi., acted arbitrarily is again to no avail' it is really for the Respondents to decide whether or not t'hey would char ge the cross- subsidy element. from different set of allottees at h given point iir tirne' It is difficult to hold such dccision to be either arbitrary or discrimi'atory in tenns of Article 14. In rnatters of allotrnent of land at subsidised rates, tlte passage of tirne and the behaviour of the rnarket are relevant factors which cannot be ignored by the Respondents' 18.'It is urged that the Respondents should not be simpl)/ seen to be rnaking profit and were expected to operate on a no-profit-1o-loss basis' If one went by the figures given by the Respondents in their connter affidavit, then a plot of land for which the circ.le rate deterrnined by the GNCTD is Rs. 27,4001- per sq. ilr., antl for which the market rate is Rs' Page 13 of 77 W.P.(C) Nos.7747 of 2070 batch . ': 36,4601- per sq. m., is being aliotled al arate of Rs. 15,5661- pel sq' m' Surely, it cannot be said that the DSIIDC is profiteering fi'om the sale of plots at Bawana-Il (Bhorgarh). It can well be said'that the Petitioncrs are getting the plots at subsidised rates' 19. It was not practical to expect the Responclents to offer the aiterlative plots -to all'the 23,000 plot-holders ruuniug industrial truits in nou- conforrning area as on 19tl'April 1996 at one go' Alternative land had to be located and then developed to make it suitable for industrial putposes' The relocation had to obviously be done in phases and over a period of tirne. It is inevitable in the process that the allotment of plots had to be sequential. This would inevitably result in the later allottnents being tlaElc at a cost highel than the eallier allotments' The malket value of the lan'J has gone up in the tneanwhile and that too dramatically' The latel allottees cannot be said to be prejudiced on this score' Moreover' adtnittedly the allottees have been exteuded the facility of availing of loans fiorn financial institutions for the entire cost of the plot' Z0.Inits order clated 27't' October' 201 0 in Motrcl' Juan v' DSIIDC' dris court had, while dismissing the writ petitions, observed as under: ''l ,.2. This Court h'ds that the scope of interfel'ence by this Court in exer.cise of its powefs under Article 226 ofthe Constitution in matters involving fixation of price by the authorities for land is nafrow' In I{avitaAht|av.Delhi'Statelntlustrial&InJt,ostructure, Developrneri corltorutiort Ltd. (decision dated 16tr' Iiebruary 2010 in civil Appeal No. 2192 12010 etc.) the suprcme court was considering W.P]C) Nos. 7L41 of 2070 batch Page 74 of 17." , T \q \\ the challenge to the action of the DSIIDC in charging lts' 4,2001- per sq. m. for plots in Bawana Industrial atea, Rs. 5,4001- pet sq' rn. for plots in the Industrial estate at Narela, Jhilmil and Badli ald Rs' 7,560/- per sq. rn. for plots in Patparganj Industrial atea. A Sirigle Judge of this court had set asicle the demand for the increased cost on the ground that the DsIIDC failed to show that it had undeftalcen any developmenl activity or incuned any expenditure loss for the plots' This was reversed by the Division Bench of this Courl by a juclgm'qni dated 22"d February 2008. The Division Bench uphelcl the action c'rf tlre DSIIDC of charging F(s. 7 ,7761- pet sq. m. for the plots al Narela' This judgment was challenged in the Supreme court and the order cf the Division Bench of this court was upheld. In pala 13, it was observed by the Supretne Court as under: ..13.ThepriceofRs.540ol-persqm.fixedin200Iisnot disputed by the allottees. I{aving regard to thb interest on the investment by way of financing cost, overheads and other factors, if the policy of the NCT of Delhi is to increase the price every year by zoyo, it cannot be statecl that the said increase is unreasonable or albitrary' I-Iavilg regard to the fact that the lands ale being continuously acquir.edanddevelopedandallotted,itwillbevct.y difficult to calculat" ih" actual costs. at any giving P!in1 oftime.SolongastheCorporationhasshownthatithad adoptedareasonablemethodoffixationofallotment pricesandhasasserledtlratpricefixalion.isona.no proht no loss' basis, the price i: lol open for dealt with the issue appropriately ani has rightly upheld the plice of Fts- 77761- Per sq'm'" 3. 'this courl tinds