Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of the Self Financing Scheme, 1985, announced by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, a statutory body constituted for constructing and providing houses. Respondents were allotted flats in 1986 in different income groups, but possession was delayed due to incomplete construction. When possession was eventually delivered, the appellant demanded extra amounts due to price escalation, which the allottees challenged as arbitrary. The High Court in February 1990 upheld the escalation but held the demand of 18% interest excessive and directed the Commissioner to consider relaxation in interest and penalty, relying on a brochure that empowered such relaxation for valid reasons including delay due to slackness of official machinery. The allottees' special leave petitions against that order were dismissed on 22 March 1990, with liberty to seek clarification from the High Court. Subsequently, some allottees filed review petitions and others writ petitions seeking the same benefit. During pendency, the Board passed a resolution granting concessions—no interest for three months, simple interest at 14.5% thereafter, penal interest of 18% after one year, and 50% reduction in maintenance charges—but only to allottees who withdrew their cases. The High Court extended these benefits to all petitioners and additionally directed 50% concession on profit and administrative charges. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified. On the first issue, the Court held that the Board resolution was not communicated in writing to individual allottees; mere production before the High Court did not amount to intimation. Since the resolution was not communicated, allottees could not be precluded from availing the concession. The Court observed that the effect of the resolution was to grant concession to defaulters, which was unfair to law-abiding allottees who had deposited the entire amount. Therefore, the extension of interest and maintenance charge concessions to all allottees who filed review or writ petitions was upheld. On the second issue, the Court held that the question of profit and overhead charges in a self-financing scheme was debatable but had been finally decided in earlier writ petitions, and the SLPs against those decisions were dismissed. The High Court could not reopen the matter by way of review, as that would disturb the finality of the earlier decision. Consequently, the appeals were allowed in part: the order granting 50% concession on administrative charges and profit was set aside, while the order regarding interest and extension of concessions as per the Board's letter dated 20/21 July 1990 was upheld. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Statutory Body Resolution Conditional on Withdrawal of Litigation - Extension of Concessions to All Allottees - No specific Act cited; Self Financing Scheme, 1985 - The Board resolved to grant interest, penalty and maintenance charge concessions only to allottees who withdrew their cases; the resolution was not communicated in writing to individual allottees. The High Court extended these concessions to all allottees who filed review or writ petitions. Held that since the resolution was not communicated, allottees could not be precluded from availing the benefit, and the extension to defaulters only was unfair; law-abiding allottees could not be placed worse than defaulters. (Paras 1-4) B) Civil Procedure - Review Petitions - Finality of Earlier Decisions - No specific Act cited; Review jurisdiction - Allottees attempted to re-agitate profit and administrative charges which had been finally decided in earlier writ petitions and SLPs dismissed. The High Court granted 50% concession on those charges. Held that the High Court could not reopen settled issues by way of review, and the order granting 50% concession on profit and administrative charges was set aside, while the interest and maintenance concessions were upheld. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing review applications and writ petitions and directing the appellant to grant 50% concession in profit and administrative charges due to delayed delivery of flats when the High Court in earlier writ petition had granted benefit only in respect of interest and penalty.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed in part. High Court's order allowing review petitions and directing 50% concession on administrative charges and profit set aside. Order in respect of interest and extension of concession as per Board letter dated 20/21 July 1990 to all allottees subject to observations upheld. Parties to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Benefit of a board resolution granting concession cannot be denied to law-abiding allottees solely because it was granted only to defaulters who withdrew cases
- communication of resolution necessary before denying benefit
- review petition cannot reopen issues already finally decided
- High Court cannot grant relief beyond scope of review after dismissal of SLP
- self-financing scheme profit and overhead charges debatable but not open once issues finally settled
