IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 15908 of 2000 BETWEEN: A.P. Housing Board Colony Nivasula Sangham, Rep. by its President B. Seshagiri Rao, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Engineer, A.P. Housing Board, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 2 The Chief Engineer, A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad. 3 A.P. Housing Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus; (a) declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in enhancing the ﬁnal cost of the house and imposing interest on the ﬁnal cost through Letter No.A11/EE-TPG/Amlp/Ph-I/2000 dated 19-7-2000 and the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in Lr.No.2150/CE/AD.5/99 dated 12-1-2000 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from being violative of principles of natural of justice and set aside the same; consequently (b) direct the respondents not to collect the enhanced cost under the guise of ﬁnal cost and interest thereon; and (c) pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt, proper and appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR MR. A.K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO SC FOR AP HOUSING BOARD The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard both the counsel. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the application of the members of the petitioner-association they were allotted MIG and LIG ﬂats in Phase-I of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Colony, Amalapuram on the tentative estimated costs of Rs.52,200/- and Rs.26,900/- respectively. While so, the ﬁrst respondent issued proceedings dated 19.07.2000 ﬁxed the ﬁnal cost of the houses of MIG at Rs.63,700/- and LIG at Rs.31,400/- intimating the same to the petitioner-association. The petitioner-association questions the impugned letter dated 19.07.2000. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even according to the letter of allotment and the agreement of sales, the cost mentioned is only tentative and clause 13 of the agreement of sale clearly stipulates that the installment ultimately ﬁxed by the Housing Board after the ﬁnal cost has been ﬁnally determined, the same is payable by the allottees. Therefore, it cannot be said that the determination of final costs is illegal and arbitrary. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ASHOK KUMAR BEHAL[1] the cost and the price mentioned in the advertisement shall only be tentative subject to determination of final enhanced costs. Therefore, as per clause 13 of the agreement of sale the Board is entitled to work out the ﬁnal cost and realize the same from the allottees. He further submits that the Apex Court in BAREILY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. AJAY PAL SINGH [2] said that non-statutory concluded contracts like the one in hand is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. 5. This Court also in Satyala Prasanna Kumar v. A.P. Housing Board (W.P.No.22259 of 2006) observed as follows: “The relationship between the petitioners and the Board is governed by the terms of a contract entered into between them known as a ‘lease cum-sale agreement.’ The terms of such a contract enable the Board to charge a higher value either on account of escalation in the cost of construction or for escalation in the cost of the land acquired by the Board for the construction of the houses. The contention of the petitioners that the validity of the action of the Board in including the component of the current market value of the land on which the houses are constructed is contrary to the terms of contract entered into between the parties, is a contention which invites interpretation of the terms of the contract. The contract between the parties per se is not a statutory contract. Disputes with regard to the interpretation of the terms of a non-statutory contract, which are not threshold disputes are more appropriately determined before an arbitral tribunal if there be any arbitration clause (the parties are agreed that there is no arbitration clause) or before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. No fundamental issues of public law are involved. In the circumstances and on the analysis above, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate upon the issues presented in this writ petition and relegates the petitioners to pursue the appropriate remedy before the Civil Court of Competent jurisdiction.” 6. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 28, 2008 DSK [1] (2002) 7 SCC 134 [2] AIR 1989 SC 1076