IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10290 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:31.05.2011 Residents Welfare Association, 2546-HIF Flats, Phase-II, Urban Estate, Dugri Road, Ludhiana and others. ....Petitioners versus The Punjab Housing Development Board and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. M.K.Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.S.Sivia, DAG, Punjab. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition has been filed at the instance of 15 petitioners making out a common cause that, in the manner of allotment of houses promoted by the Punjab Housing Development Board, the Board was attempting to secure the payment of prices more than what was contracted to be paid and even without completing the constructions. The writ petition, therefore, contained a prayer for constitution of a Tribunal under Section 69 of the Punjab Housing Development Act for completion of houses handed over to the petitioners in accordance with plans, for making provisions for amenities such as, storm/rain water drainage, street lighting, removal of wild growth, filling of ditches and pits etc., for a restraint from realizing more than Rs.2 lakhs per unit till the value of units were finally determined and to hear the petitioners before varying the terms and conditions of allotment of houses and pay to the petitioners interest for the period of delay caused by the Civil Writ Petition No.10290 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - respondents in handing over possession after completion of all the specifications mentioned in the contract. 2. It is regrettable that the cases like this which are purely in the nature of a contract must languish in Courts without much progress which is only beneficial to the petitioners in the ultimate bargain where they have obtained orders of status quo and also enjoy the property which they secured under allotment without paying additional amounts that they were called upon to pay. 3. I do not think any of the reliefs which are sought for in the writ petition could be granted to them. The first relief, namely, the constitution of a Tribunal under Section 69 of the Punjab Housing Development Act is not a judicial function. The Court shall not given any direction for constitution of Tribunals or for framing of Rules. It is an executive function and in the scheme of the Constitution of India, it shall not be encroached by the judiciary. The several grievances of the petitioners are echoed through a singular agenda that the constructions must be completed as per plans and the tentative cost determined at Rs.2 lakhs could not be collected at the whims and fancies of the functionaries of the Board without involving the allottees in such a process. The manner of allotment of houses, the completion of construction, determination of prices are all matters which are regulated through contract and the rights and obligation which each one of the petitioners have obtained on 04.12.1987 through the allotment letters set out the terms and conditions of allotment. The rights of parties are fully delineated under the terms of allotment and for any grievance that the Civil Writ Petition No.10290 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - petitioners may have about the delay in delivery of the houses or an alleged arbitrary increases in prices, they shall be issues for adjudication on letting in appropriate evidence. The reliefs sought for cannot be examined in a writ petition where there are disputed questions such as, the time for completion, the entitlement of the petitioners to certain specifications, the nature and quality of construction, the period before which the delivery must be effected etc. Remedy before this Court is inappropriate and the petitioners cannot have, therefore, any remedy before this Court. 4. If any amount is due and payable by the petitioners for the constructions made, it shall be open to the Board to make appropriate assessment and serve notices on the petitioners for recovery. The petitioners shall likewise be entitled to have independent action through a properly constituted civil suit for recovery of damages, if they are so advised and if they are within the period of limitation, for any claim where cause of action had already arisen and where deficiency of service in any form is noticed for which the Board could be responsible. The omnibus prayer in the petition containing a whole gamut of reliefs from the time before when the completion could be made or how the prices are to be determined and how the contract must be enforced could not be issues for adjudication in the writ petition. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 31.05.2011 sanjeev