- (1.) The short question that arises for consideration in these appeals filed by the statutory body constituted for constructing and providing houses is whether the High Court was justified, in peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, to allow review applications and writ petitions filed by various allottees and direct the appellants to grant concession of 50% in profit and administrative charges due to delayed delivery of flats as the High Court in earlier writ petition had granted such benefit in respect of interest and penalty.
(2.) For proper appreciation of the controversy, few facts in brief are necessary to be mentioned. In a Scheme known as 'Self Financing Scheme, 1985' announced sometime in the month of October/November, 1984 the respondents were allotted flats in 1986 of different types in different income groups. But the possession could not be handed over as constructions were not complete. When possession was delivered the appellant demanded extra amount as the price had escalated in the mean time. It was challenged by the allottees as the amount demanded was arbitrary and the constructions too were incomplete. The writ petitions were decided in February, 1990. The escalation was upheld. But the demand of interest at 18% was held to be excessive. The High Court further observed that brochure issued by the appellant relating to the Scheme empowered the Commissioner to grant relaxation from various conditions for valid reasons or for the delay due to slackness of the official machinery. The High Court directed that since delay was caused as the appellant did not discharge initial responsibility, the Commissioner may consider granting relaxation in interest and penalty. The respondents were not satisfied. They approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petitions. The petitions were dismissed on 22nd March, 1990. The order reads as under:- "The Special Leave Petitions are without merits and are dismissed. The fate of these SLPs will not, however, stand in the say of the petitioners moving the High Court for clarification of certain observations in the impugned judgment, which the petitioners contend are in their favour and in regard to which we express no view."
(3.) In consequence of the observations in the last part of the order the respondents approached the High Court by way of review petitions. Some of the allottees filed writ petitions as well claiming same benefit as was given by the High Court in its order dated 7th February, 1990. While these petitions were pending the appellant held a meeting to consider the implications of directions issued by the order. The Board resolved:- "The proposal has been unanimously approved by the Parishad after discussion. It was further decided by Parishad that this benefit be given to the allottee who withdraw their case from the Court." The letter then gives out the concessions which the Board resolved to grant to allottees. It was as under:- "1. After the issuance of the allotment order no interest would be charged from the allottees within a period of three months as indicated in the order dated 22-4-1988. 2. After the expiry of three months simple interest at the rate of 14.5% will be realised from allottees as indicated in the order dated 29th July, 1988. This period shall reckon from the expiry of three months, but after a lapse of an year 18% interest penal interest would be charged from such allottees. 3. The maintenance charges shall be reduced to the extent of 50%." In the end it was added:- "Under the above decision of Parishad, the Estate management officer Indira Nagar/Vikas Nagar, Lucknow and Kanpur and Raibarielly be informed that the persons affected be assessed and requisition be sent with the notice enclosed. Please take quick action so that money may be recovered. ;