IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12848 of 2002 Between: R.Sureka S/o R.N.Rao R/o MIG-329, Kallurupalli, Nellore. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director A.P.Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer (Housing), A.P.Housing Board, Nellore. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a order or orders or Writ or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondents in rejecting the petitioner's representation dated 31.5.2001 by orders dt: 19.10.2001 and not revising the cost of the petitioner's house MIG-329 from Rs.3,07,000/- to Rs.2,15,000/- is arbitrary and illegal and consequentially direct the respondents 1&2 to pay the balance amount of Rs.90,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 5.5.2000 forthwith Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.L.ALI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MN} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12848 of 2002 O R D E R: Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 2. The petitioner seek to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Executive Engineer (Housing), A.P.Housing Board, Nellore in rejecting the petitioner’s representation dated 31.05.2001 by order dated 19.10.2001 for reduction of cost of MIG-I, H.No.329 at Kallurupalli from Rs.3,05,000/- to Rs.2,15,000/- as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the balance amount of Rs.90,000/- to the petitioner along with interest. 3. The undisputed facts are that the A.P.Housing Board constructed 28 MIG-I houses under Phase-IV and V at Kallurupali, Nellore. The estimated cost originally was tentatively arrived at Rs.1,50,000/-. The houses from 320 MIG-I to 347 MIG-I were allotted under drawls of lots on the tentative cost of Rs.1,50,000/-. The house in question i.e. MIG-I, H.No.329, however was vacant from the beginning and it was not allotted in favour of anybody. Even in respect of allotted houses, the tentative cost was revised from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,35,000/- and questioning the said action, 13 allotties have ﬁled W.P.28519/1996 and 10 allotties have ﬁled W.P.16090/1996. 4. It is stated that in so far as the house in question, i.e. MIG-I, House No.329 notiﬁed for allotment at an estimated cost of Rs.3,05,000/- during the year 2000 and the petitioner Smt.R.Surekha applied for the allotment of the said house on the tentative cost of Rs.3,05,000/- and accordingly, submitted an application along with EMD Rs.45,750/- and as only one application was received from the petitioner for the said house, the said house was allotted, vide letter dated 07.04.2000, in favour of the petitioner on the tentative cost of Rs.3,05,000/- as she has paid 40% of the said tentative cost and also concluded a Least-cum-Agreement of Sale on 12.04.2000 agreeing to pay the balance cost in equal quarterly instalments along with interest and incidental charges and has taken over physical possession of the said house also. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the Housing Board revised the tentative cost of the similar MIG-I houses from Rs.2,63,300/- to Rs.2,15,000/- subject to withdrawal of the writ petitions ﬁled by the allotties, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the same beneﬁt granted for the petitioners in W.P.28519/1996 and W.P.16090/1996. It is stated that the said writ petitions have not been dismissed as withdrawn and no such undertaking has been filed. 6. The point that arise for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for reduction of any cost of the house in question i.e. MIG-I, H.No.329 as sought for. 7. Admittedly, the notiﬁcation relating to all the MIG-I houses, ﬁxing the tentative cost of Rs.1,50,000/- whose cost was revised to Rs.2,35,000/- and again to Rs.2,63,000/- pursuant to the notiﬁcation issued prior to 1996. Therefore, aggrieved by the revision of the cost, the allotties have ﬁled writ petitions in 1996. Whereas, the notiﬁcation issued in respect of the house bearing No.329, MIG-I is in the year 2000, pursuant to which, the petitioner alone ﬁled an application, agreeing to pay the tentative cost of Rs.3,05,000/- and also paid 40% of the tentative cost and accordingly, the house was allotted and an agreement of sale of independent house was also entered into by the petitioner with the respondents on 12.04.2000. Once the agreement of sale of independent house has been entered into, I am of the opinion that there cannot be any justiﬁcation on the part of the petitioner to wriggle out the contractual obligations, seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus for reduction of the tentative cost. The notiﬁcations and the year of notiﬁcations are diﬀerent and the petitioner with her eyes wide open wanted for allotment of the house in question which was allotted at the request of the petitioner, and therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner dated 31.05.2001 for reduction of the cost of the house in question from Rs.3,05,000/- to Rs.2,15,000/- cannot be said as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Bareilly Development Authority vs. Ajay Pal Singh[1] held that the contract entered into between the State and the persons aggrieved is non- statutory and purely contractual and the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract, and no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple. The scope of interference by the High Courts while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in case of non-statutory, concluded contracts like one in hand, the Supreme Court held that the High Courts cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus. 9. Following the aforesaid judgment, this Court dismissed various writ petitions against the Housing Board in W.P.28519/1996, dated 27.06.2007, W.P.15908/2000, dated 28.08.2008, W.P.8923/1992, dated 20.06.1997 and W.P.22259/2006, dated 07.08.2008. 10. As already stated supra, the relationship between the petitioner and the Housing Board is governed as per the terms of the contract entered into between them, known as Agreement for Sale of independent house dated 12.04.2000. The terms of such a contract enable the Housing Board to collect the said agreed cost, including the component of the current market value, if any. The contract between the parties per se is non- statutory contract. The dispute with regard to the interpretation of the terms of the non-statutory, which are not threshold disputes are more appropriately determined before an arbitral tribunal if there is any arbitration clause or before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. No fundamental issues of public law are involved. 11. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedy before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, if she so chooses. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 30.09.2008 Dsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director A.P.Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer (Housing), A.P.Housing Board, Nellore. 3.2CCs to 4.2CD copies [1] AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1076