Ranganath Misra, J. - (1.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Parasaran appearing for the respondent society Stated that Shri. S. Sangeetha Rao who was A-I Category member can be allotted the only available house in that category. Similarly, J.S. Garg who is a member of the B-Category can be accommodated-by allotment of the only house available for that category. It is stated that apart from these two houses now available there is no other accommodation for allotment to B-Category members. It has been stated that after the Lt. Governor's orders in regard to the other two petitioners being N.S. Rawat and P.S. Sharma and on their failure to pay the dues within the extended time, allotments have been made in favour of others. Only one C-1 Category accommodation is available; but we are told by Mr. Mukhoty that they would not be interested to have the same. In these circumstances, we do not think we would be justified in examining the validity of the escalation and the consequential position arising out o1 and the award following those events.
(2.) Accordingly, SLP No. 16630/89 is allowed and the WP No. 1295/88 is dismissed as not pressed. The society is called upon to make the allotment to Shri R. Sangeetha Rao on condition that he would deposit the escalated price along with interest within three months from today.
(3.) Similarly, WP No. 343 is allowed and Shri J.S. Garg shall be allotted the accommodation in the B-Category as referred to above subject to the condition that Shri Garg will pay the escalated price along with interest up-to-date within three months from today. The interest to be charged shall be at 12% per annum. Shri N.S. Rawat has filed a writ petition being No. 147/89 and Shri P. S. Sharma has filed a special leave petition No. 11450/89 which are taken on board today. Both of them as already stated are B-Category members. In the absence of available accommodation for that category, no allotment can be directed. It is for consideration as to whether this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 should go into the question as to the validity of the Award in this case. We are of the view that it would not be appropriate for us to go into this question. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. We do not think, the writ petition under Article 32 should also be entertained. The SLP and the writ petition are dismissed. All parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout.;