VINEET SARAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri D.N. Dubey along with Sri R.A. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri A.K. Misra, learned counsel for the respondent. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.
(2.) SHORT case of the petitioners is that they were allotted separate flats in Kama Vaishali Housing Scheme of the Ghaziabad Development sometime between 1995 to 1997 by separate allotment orders, in which the estimated cost of the flat was shown as Rs.70,000/-. The petitioners were required to deposit the cost in installments and as per the allotment order, on deposit of 70% of the cost, possession was to be given to them. The further condition was that the allottee could deposit the entire amount in one go, in which case no interest would be payable by the allottee. All the petitioners opted for the latter offer mentioned in the allotment order and deposited the entire amount in one go and got the possession of the flats immediately, meaning thereby that the cost, which was stated in the allotment order to be Rs.70,000/- had been deposited by each of the petitioners before getting the possession of their respective flats. Now, by means of separate orders which have been passed in December 2002 in each individual case of all the petitioners, a further demand of Rs.24,810/- has been raised as according to the respondents, the final cost of the flats in question has been determined as Rs.94,810/-. These orders are challenged in this writ petition.
(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after lapse of nearly seven years, such orders have been passed requiring the petitioners to pay a substantially higher amount. Further it has been stated in para 11 of the writ petition that in a similar case of one Sri Mahesh Chandra Jiyal, an identically situated flat was allotted on 20.2.1995 to said Sri Jiyal in which the final cost of the said flat was determined as 71,450/- and no further amount has been demanded from the said person thereafter. The petitioners being identically placed, the action of the respondents in raising a further demand of Rs.24,810/- from the petitioners is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory.;