Desai, J. - (1.) Allottees of flats, constructed by the Delhi Development Authority (Authority for short), located at Rajouri Garden, Prasad Nagar and Lawrance Road comprised in Middle Income Group Scheme, question the decision of first respondent (Delhi Development Authority) to collect surcharge as part of the sale price of each flat from each of them as unauthorised and discriminatory in character, in these two petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. Both the petitions raise identical contentions and it was said that Writ Petition No. 562 of 1979 is more comprehensive in character and, therefore, the facts alleged herein may be taken as representative in character. They may be briefly stated.
(2.) Delhi Development Authority was set up under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The Act was enacted to provide for the development of Delhi according to plan and for matters ancillary thereto and for carrying out the objects underlying the Act, the Authority has prepared Master and Zonal Development Plans for Delhi. With a view to easing the acute housing problems in the capital city the Authority undertakes construction of dwelling units for people belonging to different income groups styled as Middle Income Group ('MIG' for short), Low Income Group ('LIG' for short), Janta and Community Personnel Service ('CPS' for short). In 1971 the Authority commenced registration of intending applicants desirous of having a dwelling unit in different income groups. Some of the petitioners got themselves registered with the authority in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down by it and made the initial deposits are required by the terms and conditions. Petitioners had applied and got themselves registered for allotment of flats in MIG scheme situated at Lawrence Road. As the number of available flats in this scheme were less than the number of allottees registered, lots were drawn and the petitioners were informed that they have been allotted flats and that each of them should deposit the amount mentioned in the letter of allotment. It appears that the petitioners paid the amount they were called upon to pay and a flat was allotted to each of them and they have entered into possession. Petitioners now contend that the Authority being a statutory body formed with an object of working on 'no profit no loss' basis and having prescribed a formula for working out the cost price of flats has levied and collected a surcharge for each of the petitioner. According to the petitioners the cost price worked out in accordance with the formula prescribed by the Authority, cost of each flat would be between Rupees 51,800/- and 55,600/- depending upon the area, extra balcony etc. However, each one of them had to pay between Rupees 56,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- and that according to the petitioners a surcharge varying from Rs. 3,400/- to Rs. 6,000/- for a flat has been illegally and unlawfully collected by way of premium or profit. It is further alleged that the Authority has not levied and collected such surcharge from other allottees of flats in some other MIG Schemes and that this action of levying and collecting surcharge of violative of Art. 14 inasmuch as persons belonging to the same class, namely, allottees of flats in MIG scheme have been unequally treated. It is also alleged that there was no valid or understandable justification for levying and collecting surcharge as price of flats comprised in MIG Schemes, between 1976 and 1977, and that from May 10, 1978, this unauthorised surcharge has been abolished. Petitioners, also contend that the assertion of the Authority that this surcharge was levied and collected with a view of financing housing projects for lower income groups, Janta and CSP dwelling units so as to provide these weaker sections of the society, houses at a price lower than cost price with a view to making them affordable by such members of the weaker sections of the society, is belied by facts undisputed and that the whole attempt of the Authority, in violation of its avowed policy, was to make profit by levying such illegal surcharge. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for issue of a writ or order or direction declaring the levy of surcharge as illegal and unconstitutional and for a direction for refund thereof together with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the date of levy and collection till the date of refund.
(3.) In the cognate petition the petitioners are allottees of flats situated at Prasad Nagar and Rajouri Garden under MIG scheme and they complain that in their case surcharge varies from Rupees 19,200 to Rs. 22,500.;