U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD AND ANR. versus RAVI KUMAR ANAND AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 1112 · Decided: 02-05-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD AND ANR. 
v. 
RA VI KUMAR ANAND AND ORS. 
r~ 
MAY 2, 1995 
B 
[R.M. SAHAI AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.) 
Housing: 
Housing Board-Allotment of Houses-Price escalation-Writ Chai-
..._ ,· 
C. lenging-High Court upholding escalation but directing Board to grant relaxa-
lion in respect of interest and penalty-Special Leave Petition by 
al/ottees-DismissaJ-Review Petitions-Writ by some a//ottees claiming 
benefit granted by High Court ear/ie1"-/Joard's resolution to grant concession 
to those al/ottees who would withdraw their cases-Issue of notices to defaul-
D ter allottees-Letter containing Board's decision not communicated to each 
allottee-Direction by High Court to extend concessional benefit not only to 
defaulters but to all the petitioners-field justified-But High Court's direction 
.. 
regarding 50% concession in respect of profit and overhead charges held not 
justified as it was settled in earlier petitions. 
E 
The respondents, who were allotted and given delayed delivery of 
Oats under a Self Financing Scheme by the appellant- board, filed writ 
petitions in the High Court challenging the escalated price demanded by 
the appellant. The High Court upheld the escalation but held that the 
demand of 18% Interest from the allottees was excessive and directed the 
F Board's Commissioner to grant relaxation to allottees in interest and 
"' • 
penalty: The respondents flied a Special Leave Petition which was dis· 
missed) Therefore, they Ille review petition before the High Court for 
claririfation of the Impugned judgment. In the meantime, some of the 
allottees filed writ petitions claiming the same benefits which were given 
G 
by the High Court in its earlier order. During the pendency of these 
petitions the Board resolved to grant certain concessions with regard to 
interest and maintenance charges to those allottees who would withdraw 
their cases from the Court and accordingly directed Its authorities to issue 
~-
notices for recovery of money from those allottees who had committed 
default in making the payments. However, the Board's decision was not 
H communicated to each individual allottee in writing. On the basis of the 
1112 
.• .A 
--' ' 
U.P.AVAS EVAMVIKASv. RAVI KUMAR ANAND 
1113 
letter dated 20/21 July, 1990 containing the Board's resolution the High A 
Court directed that the benefits should be extended to every petitioner. The 
High Court also directed that the demand of administrative and profit 
charges should be reduced by 50% Against the decision of the High Court 
Housing Board preferred appeals to this Court. 
Allowing the appeals in part, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1. The effect of the resolution passed by the Board and its 
implementation was to grant concession to those allottees who bad com· 
milted default that was not fair. If the Board's Commissioner relaxed the 
conditions in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court then the benefit C 
of it could not be denied to those who were more law abiding and deposited 
the entire amount demanded by the Board. They could not be made worse 
then those who were defaulters. Consequently, all those allottees who bad 
filed the review petitions or writ petitions and to whom no intimation was 
sent shall also be extended the same concession. The High Court's order 
in respect of eXtension of concession to all the allottees is upheld. (1116· D 
D·E) 
2. The High Court was not justified in granting the concession of 
50% in respect of profit and over-head charges as these aspects bad been 
finally decided and settled in the earlier writ petitions, Special Leave E 
Petitions against which bad been dismissed by this Court. The High Court 
could not have reopened the matter by way of a review petition when it was 
not permitted by this Court and effect ot which, if permitted, would be to 
disturb the finality of the ellrller decision. The said order of the High Court 
is liable to be set aside. [1116-G-H, 1117-A-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5713 of 
1995 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.1993 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1179 of 1987. 
S.B. Sanyal and P.K. Jain for the Appellants. 
Aron Jaitley, Ranjan Mukherjee, Rakesb persad and B.B. Sabarya 
for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
G 
H 
1114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The short question that arises for consideration in these appeals filed 
by the statut

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.