B. Dikshit, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who belongs to Economically Weaker Section of Society, filed this petition raising grievance of arbitrariness and discrimination by Kanpur Development Authority (KDA in short). THE petitioner has claimed violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India for making demand of Rs. 26,763-00 as price of flat No. A-424 EWS allotted to petitioner in the development scheme known as Barrah Pariyojna at Kanpur. THE grievance of discrimination has arisen as KDA has allotted similar flat in same scheme for Rs. 152911-25 to other allottees while petitioner has been asked to pay a higher price.
(2.) KDA is a Development Authority constituted under section 4 of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. To achieve one of its object it framed a schema for building dwelling units in shape of flats with financial aid from the "World Bank" under development scheme. The disputed flat has been constructed for economically weaker section of society under said scheme and it is known as flat of fourth category under scheme. According to brochure issued by KDA for making applications for allotment of a flat the estimated cost and price of each flat was Rs 9,000/- which was finally determined on revision as Rs. 15,291-25. After determination of price as Rs. 15,291-25. each allottee of flat of same category was asked to pay Rs. 15, 291-25 as price of flats while petitioner has been asked to pay Rs. 26,763-00 for a similar flat, which has given rise to this petition. As the flat of petitioner was constructed simultaneously with other flats of same category and was of same kind, the petitioner has claimed that he could not be asked to pay more than what was being paid by other allottees. It has been argued on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner has been asked to pay more arbitrarily without any reasonable basis and, therefore, the demand from petitioner to pay more than what others were asked to pay violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The KDA has justified the demand of enhanced amount from petitioner as price of flat allotted to him. The justification of KDA is that the petitioner was initially allotted flat Mo. A-243 at Barrah Pariyojna on 27-5-1986 and as he did not fulfil conditions of the allotment, he was asked to pay an enhanced amount as price, the enhancement being 25% per year over and above original cost of flat. This amount of 25% per year was considered payable for whole of the period between initial allotment of flat No. A-243 on 27-5-1986 and the present allotment on 9-1-1988. The KDA has claimed the amount demanded as price of flat on 9-1-1988. The stand of KDA is that the petitioner has been asked to pay enhanced amount as he did not fulfil the conditions of allotment on initial allotment on 27-5- 1986 and under such circumstances there is no unreasonableness in demanding higher price from petitioner, which is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and Article 14 of the Constitution does not stand violated- This has given rise to argument by Learned Counsel for KDA that there was reasonable basis for demanding higher amount from petitioner. He argued that petitioner did not deposit the price of flat No. A-243-EWS despite communication dated 27-5-1986 by KDA to him and therefore he cannot be equated with other allottees, each of whom made the deposit of amount demanded as price on draw of lot. The petitioner has disputed the fact about receipt of information from KDA. This takes us to consider the reasonableness of the demand of higher price from petitioner as compared to other allottees, the excess amount being Rs. 11.471-75 which is more than 42.86% as compared to the amount payable by other allottees. This amount is an increased amount at the rate of 25% per year over and above original cost. The KDA has claimed it to be the price of the flat on 9-1-1988, when allotment was made in favour of petitioner.
(3.) THE KDA has asked petitioner to pay Rs. 11,471-75 which price is about 42 86% more than what has been for similar other flats. THE demand of such higher sum is perse discriminatory. No more facts, are required for establishing violation of Constitutional right of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Once it is established that the present case is of discrimination per-se then the onus of proof is on KDA to justify the demand of higher amount on some reasonable basis. Kda is a Development Authority constituted with the object to promote and secure planned development of Kanpur Nagar and areas around it. To ease acute house problems at Kanpur the Kda undertook to construct dwelling units, beside others, for economically weaker section of society. In doing so, it was discharging Governmental function of planned development of Kanpur. Such planned development being Governmental function, the legislature felt the need for creation of separate town-planning or development authorities for individual cities. See Union of India v. R. C. Jain, AIR 1981 SC 951, U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act was enacted to achieve that object giving rise to constitution of Kda for development of Kanpur. To achieve one of its object of planned development, Kda framed the scheme and constructed flats to provide dwelling units on ownership basis to economically weaker section of the society. The Kda with application forms for allotment of flats issued a brochure in which the price of Rs. 9,000/- was also mentioned. It was also shown as estimated cost of each flat. The estimated cost and price of flats being same, indicates that flats of the scheme were to be allotted on "No Profit, No Loss" basis. The brochure provided terms and conditions on which allotment was to be made. According to Brochure, the price was subject to change but it was nowhere provided for charging enhanced price from any allottee for any reason whatsoever. The Brochure is in the nature of an offer for registration of persons who were interested for allotment of house to be constructed under the scheme. It is undisputed fact that petitioner got registration which brought into existence an agreement between Kda and petitioner as per terms and conditions mentioned in Brochure. Similarly, other persons also applied giving rise to separate agreements between Kda on one part and each of them on the other part.;