THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 16291 of 2007 Date: 14.02.2008 Between: The 15th Phase Allottees Welfare Association, Reg. No.3868/1998, MIG-56/3, III Phase, KPHB Colony, R.R. District, rep. by its President U. Shiva Prasad. ..... PETITIONER AND Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 16291 of 2007 Order: Assailing the impugned letter dated 30.04.2007, issued by the 3rd respondent-Executive Engineer, abnormally fixing the final costs of the plots allotted in the year 1995 to the members of the petitioner- Association; the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner-Association states that in response to the notification issued by the A.P. Housing Board for allotment of residential plots i.e., HIG, MIG and LIG, the members of the petitioner-Association submitted their applications, and in the year 1995, they were allotted respective plots in phase XV at Kukatpally. While so, in the meeting held in the year 2001, the cost of the HIG plots were enhanced from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.2,03,000/-, MIG plots from Rs.65,000/- to Rs.1,47,000/- and LIG plots from Rs.52,000/- to Rs.1,16,000/- and the members of the petitioner-Association also agreed to pay the same. The grievance of the petitioner-Association is that all of a sudden, the respondents, without any prior intimation, and ignoring the costs fixed in the year 2001, issued the impugned letter, fixing the final rates of the plots irrationally and demanded its members to pay the same in quarterly instalments basis, which is illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-A.P. Housing Board. Admittedly, the members of the petitioner-Association have entered into individual agreements with the respondent-A.P. Housing Board, paid tentative costs and got allotment of respective plots. As per Clauses 16 and 17 of the agreements, they agreed to pay the increase in the cost as has been fixed by the A.P. Housing Board. It is in invocation of these clauses, and taking into consideration the fact that they had to pay more towards land acquisition compensation to the land losers, the respondents enhanced the price, and accordingly demanded the amount mentioned in the impugned letter. The law is well settled that 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. In fact, the apex Court in Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh[1], considered similar issue and held as follows: “When the contract entered into by the State is non- statutory and purely contractual, the relations are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions, but by the legally valid contract which determines the rights and obligations of the parties inter se. In this sphere, the parties can only claim rights conferred upon them by the contract in the absence of any statutory obligations on the part of the authority in the said contractual field. It is also settled that 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 said judgment of the apex Court was followed by a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sheelawanti v. Delhi Development Authority[2], which was in turn approved by the apex Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Ashok Kumar Behal[3]. Following the above said judgments, this Court, by order dated 21.11.2007, also dismissed the similar Writ Petition No. 15818 of 2002, granting liberty to the petitioner therein to avail the remedies available to him under law. In the instant case, the members of the petitioner-Association, having accepted the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment, and having regard to the judgments referred to above, now cannot be allowed to contend that the respondents are not entitled to raise the demand. Merely because the respondents are a public body, it does not mean, writ petition filed against them has to be entertained despite the fact that the writ petition raises disputed questions of fact. The petitioner-Association, though assailed the demand letter, the fact remains, such demand raised by the respondents arises out of a contractual agreements entered into by the members of the petitioner- Association and the respondents, and since the writ petition raises disputed questions of fact, namely whether the respondents are justified in raising the demand, and if so, whether they are entitled to claim interest thereon or not, the adjudication of the same require adducing of evidence by the parties, and therefore, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the competent Civil Court and file civil suit, but certainly writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not a remedy, and more so on the ground that the respondents are a public body. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner-Association is at liberty to avail the remedies available to it under law. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 14.02.2008 Nsr [1] AIR 1989 SC 1076 [2] AIR 1995 Delhi 212 (FB) [3] AIR 2002 SC 2940