Case: Bareilly Development Authority &amp; Anr Vs. Ajai Pal Singh &amp; Ors

property. This is not only the case of the applicants of MIG scheme but also of the other applicants falling under the other categories i.e. HIG, LIG and EWS. So it cannot be said that there was a mis-statement or incorrect statement or any fraudulent concealment in the information supplied in the brochure published by the BDA on the strength of which all the applicants falling under the various categories applied and got their names registered. In such a circumstances the respondents cannot be heard to say that the BDA has arbitrarily and unreasonably changed the terms and conditions of the brochure to the prejudice of the respondents. 18. More so, the respondents barring respondents 13, 17, 18 and 20 after having given their written consent accepting the changed and varied terms and conditions as shown in the letter dated January 19/20, 1984 are not justified in contending that the BDA has gone back on its original terms and conditions and has substituted new conditions to their detriment. It is quite ununderstandable that the persons like the first respondent who is highly educated, occupying the post of the Principal of a College and who has accepted the changed terms and conditions by his letter is making these allegations against the BDA. 19. The respondents were under no obligation to seek allotment of houses/flats even after they had registered themselves. Notwithstanding, of houses/flats even after they had registered themselves as applicants, only after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the brochure inclusive of clauses 12 and 13 and Notes 1 and 2 of the General Information Table which we have reproduced above, they are now trying to obtain the houses/flats at the price indicated in the brochure at the initial stage conveniently ignoring the other express conditions by and under which the BDA has reserved its right to change the terms and conditions as and when felt necessary, evidently depending upon the escalation of the prices. One should not lose sight of the fact that the BDA did not compel anyone of the applicants to purchase the flat at the rates subsequently fixed by it and pay the increased monthly instalments. On the contrary, the opinion was left over only to the allottees. In fact, the respondents in Civil Appeal No. 2809 of 1986 except the four abovementioned have unconditionally accepted the changed terms and conditions. 20. Thus the factual position in this case clearly and unambiguously reveals that the respondents after voluntarily accepting the conditions imposed by the BDA have entered into the realm of concluded contract pure and simple with the BDA and hence the respondents can only claim the right conferred upon them by the said contract and are bound by the terms of the contract unless some statute steps in and confers some special statutory obligations on the part of the BDA in the contractual field. In the case before us, the contract between the respondents and the BDA does not contain any statutory terms and/or conditions. When the factual position is so, the High Court placing reliance on the decision in Ramana Dayaram Shetty case ((1979) 3 SCC 489 : AIR 1979 SC 1628 ) has erroneously heldIt has not been disputed that the contesting opposite party is included within the term other authority mentioned under Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, the contesting opposite parties cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily with the principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. Where an authority appears acting unreasonably this Court is not powerless and a writ of mandamus can be issued for performing its duty free from arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 21. This finding, in our view, is not correct in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case because in Ramana Dayaram Shetty case ((1979) 3 SCC 489 : AIR 1979 SC 1928) there was no concluded contract as in this case. Even conceding that the BDA has the trappings of a State or would be comprehended in other authority for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution, while determining price of the houses/flats constructed by it and the rate of monthly instalments to be paid, the authority or its agent after entering into the field of ordinary contract acts purely in its executive capacity. Thereafter 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, they can only claim right conferred upon them by the contract in the absence of any statutory obligations on the part of the authority (i.e. BDA in this case) in the said contractual field. 22. There is a line of decisions where the contract entered into between the State and the persons aggrieved is non-statutory and purely contractual and the right are governed only by the terms of the contract, 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 - Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar ((1977) 3 SCC 457 : (1977) 3 SCR 249 ), Premji Bhai Parmar v. Delhi Development Authority ((1980) 2 SCC 129 : (1980) 2 SCR 704 ) and DFO v. Biswanath Tea Company Ltd. ((1981) 3 SCC 238 : (1981) 3 SCR 662). 23. In view of the authoritative judicial pronouncements of this Court in the series of cases dealing with the scope of interference of a High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in cases of non-statutory concluded contracts like the one in hand, we are constrained to hold that the High Court in the present case has gone wrong in its finding that there is arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the appellants herein in increasing the cost of the houses/flats and the rate of monthly instalments and giving directions in the writ petitions as prayed for.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]17. Only on the basis of the written acceptance, the names of the first respondent was included in the draw and he was successful in getting the allotment of House No. 37 in MIG type which fact is clearly borne out by the letter from the second respondent (Annexure F). In this connection, it is worthwhile to note that the first respondent, Shri Ajay Pal Singh is the Principal of Shri Guru Govind Singh Inter College and his educational qualifications are M.A. (Eco. & Hist.), B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B. From the above, it is clear that all the respondents who have sent their applications for registration with initial payment only after having fully understood the terms and conditions of the brochure inclusive of the clauses 12 and 13 and Notes 1 and 2 of the General Information Table as per which the BDA has reserved its right to change, enhance or amend any of the terms and/or conditions as the when felt necessary, and also the right to relax any of the conditions at its discretion, and that the cost shown in the column 4 of the brochure was only estimated cost subject to increase or decrease according to the rise or fall in the price at the time of completion of the property. This is not only the case of the applicants of MIG scheme but also of the other applicants falling under the other categories i.e. HIG, LIG and EWS. So it cannot be said that there was a mis-statement or incorrect statement or any fraudulent concealment in the information supplied in the brochure published by the BDA on the strength of which all the applicants falling under the various categories applied and got their names registered. In such a circumstances the respondents cannot be heard to say that the BDA has arbitrarily and unreasonably changed the terms and conditions of the brochure to the prejudice of theMore so, the respondents barring respondents 13, 17, 18 and 20 after having given their written consent accepting the changed and varied terms and conditions as shown in the letter dated January 19/20, 1984 are not justified in contending that the BDA has gone back on its original terms and conditions and has substituted new conditions to their detriment. It is quite ununderstandable that the persons like the first respondent who is highly educated, occupying the post of the Principal of a College and who has accepted the changed terms and conditions by his letter is making these allegations against theThe respondents were under no obligation to seek allotment of houses/flats even after they had registered themselves. Notwithstanding, of houses/flats even after they had registered themselves as applicants, only after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the brochure inclusive of clauses 12 and 13 and Notes 1 and 2 of the General Information Table which we have reproduced above, they are now trying to obtain the houses/flats at the price indicated in the brochure at the initial stage conveniently ignoring the other express conditions by and under which the BDA has reserved its right to change the terms and conditions as and when felt necessary, evidently depending upon the escalation of the prices. One should not lose sight of the fact that the BDA did not compel anyone of the applicants to purchase the flat at the rates subsequently fixed by it and pay the increased monthly instalments. On the contrary, the opinion was left over only to the allottees. In fact, the respondents in Civil Appeal No. 2809 of 1986 except the four abovementioned have unconditionally accepted the changed terms andThus the factual position in this case clearly and unambiguously reveals that the respondents after voluntarily accepting the conditions imposed by the BDA have entered into the realm of concluded contract pure and simple with the BDA and hence the respondents can only claim the right conferred upon them by the said contract and are bound by the terms of the contract unless some statute steps in and confers some special statutory obligations on the part of the BDA in the contractual field. In the case before us, the contract between the respondents and the BDA does not contain any statutory terms and/or conditions. When the factual position is so, the High Court placing reliance on the decision in Ramana Dayaram Shetty case ((1979) 3 SCC 489 : AIR 1979 SC 1628 ) has erroneously heldIt has not been disputed that the contesting opposite party is included within the term other authority mentioned under Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, the contesting opposite parties cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily with the principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. Where an authority appears acting unreasonably this Court is not powerless and a writ of mandamus can be issued for performing its duty free from arbitrariness orThis finding, in our view, is not correct in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case because in Ramana Dayaram Shetty case ((1979) 3 SCC 489 : AIR 1979 SC 1928) there was no concluded contract as in this case. Even conceding that the BDA has the trappings of a State or would be comprehended in other authority for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution, while determining price of the houses/flats constructed by it and the rate of monthly instalments to be paid, the authority or its agent after entering into the field of ordinary contract acts purely in its executive capacity. Thereafter 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, they can only claim right conferred upon them by the contract in the absence of any statutory obligations on the part of the authority (i.e. BDA in this case) in the said contractualThere is a line of decisions where the contract entered into between the State and the persons aggrieved is non-statutory and purely contractual and the right are governed only by the terms of the contract, 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 - Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar ((1977) 3 SCC 457 : (1977) 3 SCR 249 ), Premji Bhai Parmar v. Delhi Development Authority ((1980) 2 SCC 129 : (1980) 2 SCR 704 ) and DFO v. Biswanath Tea Company Ltd. ((1981) 3 SCC 238 : (1981) 3 SCRIn view of the authoritative judicial pronouncements of this Court in the series of cases dealing with the scope of interference of a High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in cases of non-statutory concluded contracts like the one in hand, we are constrained to hold that the High Court in the present case has gone wrong in its finding that there is arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the appellants herein in increasing the cost of the houses/flats and the rate of monthly instalments and giving directions in the writ petitions as prayed for