Statutory pricing limits bar new surcharge and retrospective cost demands beyond the original allotment scheme.

A statutory authority may fix disposal price only within the enabling statute, regulations, brochure terms and allotment conditions, and cannot add a new compulsory surcharge through executive office orders. The text explains that the 20% surcharge was outside the original offer and lacked a clear statutory or published basis, making it vulnerable to Article 14 scrutiny for arbitrariness. It also states that current cost cannot be demanded from defaulter registrants by retrospectively enlarging the price formula through office orders, because contractual pricing terms cannot be altered beyond the original scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of 20% surcharge from South Delhi SFS registrants was within the Authority's power and valid in law; (ii) Whether the demand of current cost from defaulter registrants, by applying office orders retrospectively and outside the original scheme, was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of 20% surcharge from South Delhi SFS registrants was within the Authority's power and valid in law.

Analysis: The disposal price under the Regulations had to be fixed by the Authority within the framework of the brochure, the allotment terms, and the statutory scheme. The surcharge was not part of the original offer or communicated contractual terms, and the office orders introducing it were not shown to have statutory source or proper publication. A delegatee could not, by executive order, add a new price component so as to impose a compulsory exaction in the guise of contractual pricing. The levy was also tested on the touchstone of fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14.

Conclusion: The 20% surcharge was not justified and was invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of current cost from defaulter registrants, by applying office orders retrospectively and outside the original scheme, was justified.

Analysis: The scheme and allotment letter contemplated estimated cost, escalation on completion, and restoration on payment of dues with interest and charges, but did not authorize unilateral alteration of the bargain through retrospective office orders. The Authority could not enlarge the price formula by introducing fresh factors beyond those in the brochure and allotment terms. Any policy decision affecting contractual rights had to remain within the statute, the regulations, and the original contract, and could not be given retrospective effect by mere executive action.

Conclusion: The demand for current cost on the basis of the impugned policy was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment of the High Court was unsustainable; the challenged levy and revised pricing policy were set aside, and relief was granted to the Authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority may fix price only within the limits of its enabling statute, regulations, and original contractual terms, and cannot by retrospective executive policy impose fresh charges or price components not contemplated in the original bargain.

---