Concluded contract and legitimate expectation in allotment pricing fail where the later allotment is accepted at the prevailing rate.

An earlier communication did not create a concluded contract for allotment at the earlier rate where the allottee did not accept it by payment, the deposited amount was refunded and encashed without objection, and the later allotment was accepted at the prevailing rate through payment, affidavit and execution of the lease deed. On those facts, charging the prevailing market price on the date of allotment was neither discriminatory nor an unfair trade practice, and no valid claim arose to the earlier rate or refund of the differential amount. The doctrine of legitimate expectation was held inapplicable because the authority acted in accordance with the scheme and without unfairness.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier offer letter and deposit created a concluded contract entitling the allottee to the earlier rate, whether charging the prevailing rate on the date of allotment amounted to discriminatory or unfair trade practice, and whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation applied.

Analysis: The earlier 1993 communication was only an offer and not a completed allotment, as the respondent did not accept it by payment and the deposited amount was refunded and encashed without objection. The later allotment in 1996 was made at the then prevailing rate, which the respondent accepted by depositing the amount, filing an affidavit undertaking compliance with the terms, and executing the lease deed. On those facts, there was no concluded contract at the earlier rate, no basis to claim discrimination from the treatment of another allottee on different facts, and no unfairness in applying the scheme condition that the allotment price would be the prevailing market price on the date of allotment. The doctrine of legitimate expectation was also held inapplicable because the authority acted in accordance with the scheme and did not act unfairly.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to the earlier rate or refund of the differential amount, and the findings of restrictive or unfair trade practice were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order of the Commission was set aside and the complaint before it was rejected, leaving the appellant successful in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an allotment is made only on acceptance of a later offer at the prevailing rate, supported by refund of the earlier deposit without protest, affidavit, and execution of the lease deed, the earlier communication does not create a concluded contract and the allottee cannot invoke discrimination or legitimate expectation to claim the earlier price.

---