Civil Writ Petition No. 18059 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 18059 of 1991 Date of decision: 14.07.2011 Col. Pritam Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Commissioner, Punjab Housing Dev. Board ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: None. RANJIT SINGH J. This writ petition was filed by two serving Army Officers giving their addresses of their place of posting in the memo. Petitioner No. 1 was posted at Headquarters 11 Corps Headquarters whereas petitioner No. 2 was posted at MP-B and Area Jabalpur. Both the petitioners were represented by Sh. H.R. Bansal, Advocate of this Court, who unfortunately is no more. The petitioners had challenged the action of the respondent-Board demanding the enhanced price of HIG flat circulated under the scheme known as Partial Self Financing Scheme (HIG) at Garha Road, Jalandhar. The writ petition was admitted on 05.12.1991 and the recovery of the enhanced amount as demanded by the Board was stayed. The writ petition has now come up for hearing. The notices were also sent to the petitioners when the Court found that counsel representing them is no more. The notices have been returned back without being served. Obviously, the Civil Writ Petition No. 18059 of 1991 2 petitioners would now not be serving at the places of their respective posting in the year 1991. There is no other method to reach the petitioners. In this view of the matter, I have decided to take up the writ petition and to decide the same on merits. The petitioners got themselves registered with the respondents under the scheme known as Partial Self Financing Scheme HIG, Gahara road, Jalandhdar. This scheme was floated by the Punjab Housing Development Board. The petitioners had deposited ` 10,000/- in this regard. The petitioners received communication from the respondent-Board on 03.02.1988, mentioning that they have been allotted a house under the Partial Self Financing Scheme at Garha Road, Jalandhar. The exact number of house so allotted was to be settled through draw of lots. The petitioners were also informed that the houses were at advanced stage of construction and were likely to be concluded within a period of six months. The tentative cost, as intimated, was ` 22,20,000/-. This was worked out on the basis of current cost of construction. It was disclosed that the price was likely to be enhanced and was to be determined at the completion of the house. The schedule of payment of the price was also given. After draw of lots, petitioner No. 1 was allotted HIG House No. 178 in this scheme. In this letter, tentative price was mentioned as ` 3,24,000/-, which was an increase of about ` one lac from original price of ` 2,20,000/-. It was provided in terms and conditions No. 8 of the allotment letter that the Board may for reasons to be recorded in writing revise the tentative price from time to time and Civil Writ Petition No. 18059 of 1991 3 whenever the price is revised, it shall be determined in the manner in which the revised price is payable and such price both original and revised, shall be final and the allottee shall be precluded from making complaint or raising objection or setting up any claim in this behalf at any stage. The condition is as under:- “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, if considered essential, the Board may for reasons to be recorded in writing revise the tentative price from time to time and whenever the price is revised, it shall determine the manner in which the revised price is payable and such price both original and revised, shall be final and the allottee shall be precluded from making complaint or raising objection or setting up any claim in this behalf of any stage.” As per the petitioners, giving reason in support of the enhanced price was sine quo non. The petitioners were paying instalments. The petitioner further complains that the houses, as constructed, were not as per the speculation and, accordingly, had challenged this increase of price of the houses by 33%. No one has appeared on behalf of the Board. No reply has also been filed. This has added to the difficulty of this Court to ensure service on the petitioners. Without going into the effect of condition No. 8, which definitely would have a bearing on the right of the petitioners to challenge the enhanced price, I deem to appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with the directions to the respondent-Board to now furnish the reasons and justification for enhancing the price to the petitioners. The petitioners be informed of Civil Writ Petition No. 18059 of 1991 4 the reasons for which the price was required to be enhanced. The petitioners would be at liberty to make a representation against the same and raise their objections, if any. The Board may then take an appropriate decision to demand or not to demand the enhanced price. The petitioners, if still left with any grievance, would be at liberty to take any appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. July 14, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE