Article 32 cannot reopen concluded flat-sale contracts; scheme-based surcharge and delegated pricing were upheld.

A public allottee who accepted brochure terms, paid the stated price and took possession could not use Article 32 to reopen concluded flat-sale contracts and seek a refund after receiving the contractual benefit. The levy of surcharge in MIG flat pricing was also upheld because price fixation was an executive function, Article 14 required comparison within the relevant scheme-based class, and no hostile discrimination was shown. The pricing policy and surcharge were not inconsistent with the housing body's "no profit no loss" framework, since the regulations allowed disposal-price fixation and the overall scheme could use surpluses to subsidise weaker sections. Delegated authority also supported the Vice-Chairman's approval of the disposal price, and no unlawful profiteering was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioners could invoke Article 32 to reopen concluded contracts and claim refund of part of the purchase price; (ii) whether levy of surcharge in the pricing of MIG flats was discriminatory or otherwise offended Article 14; (iii) whether the Delhi Development Authority's pricing policy and the surcharge were unauthorised or inconsistent with the "no profit no loss" basis; and (iv) whether the Vice-Chairman had authority to approve the disposal price including surcharge and whether any profit-making was established.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners could invoke Article 32 to reopen concluded contracts and claim refund of part of the purchase price.

Analysis: The flats were offered through brochures specifying the price, the petitioners applied with knowledge of the terms, paid the stated price, obtained allotment, and took possession. In that setting, the dispute was not one of enforcing a fundamental right but of seeking to reopen completed contractual transactions. Once the State or its instrumentality enters the realm of ordinary contract, rights and liabilities are governed by the contract unless a statute otherwise intervenes. A writ under Article 32 is not a proper vehicle to obtain refund of part of the price after accepting the contractual benefit.

Conclusion: The challenge to the completed transactions was not maintainable under Article 32.

Issue (ii): Whether levy of surcharge in the pricing of MIG flats was discriminatory or otherwise offended Article 14.

Analysis: For pricing purposes, the relevant class was not all MIG allottees in the abstract but allottees under the same scheme, at the same place and time, where cost factors such as land value, materials, labour, transport, and development conditions differed. Price fixation is an executive function involving economic judgment, and Article 14 is attracted only where persons similarly situated in the relevant class are treated unequally without rational basis. The material showed scheme-wise and project-wise differences, including special facts at Munirka and the treatment of flats supplied to Government for staff quarters. No hostile discrimination within a legally relevant class was established.

Conclusion: The levy of surcharge did not violate Article 14.

Issue (iii): Whether the Delhi Development Authority's pricing policy and the surcharge were unauthorised or inconsistent with the "no profit no loss" basis.

Analysis: The regulations did not prescribe a rigid formula requiring each flat to be priced at exact construction cost. They vested power to fix disposal price in the Authority, and the policy statement of functioning on a "no profit no loss" basis described the overall working of the housing programme, not an inflexible rule for each flat or each scheme. The pricing materials showed that estimates escalated over time and that any surplus from some schemes was intended to subsidise weaker-income housing. The record did not show that the pricing mechanism was a sham or that the surcharge was outside the regulatory framework.

Conclusion: The surcharge was not shown to be unauthorised or inconsistent with the governing scheme.

Issue (iv): Whether the Vice-Chairman had authority to approve the disposal price including surcharge and whether any profit-making was established.

Analysis: The Act and regulations permitted delegation of pricing powers to the Vice-Chairman, and the resolutions placed the fixing of disposal price within that delegated sphere. The approval note fixing the relevant disposal price was countersigned by the Vice-Chairman, which supported the inference that the price, including the surcharge element, was approved by the competent authority. The financial material also did not substantiate a claim of profiteering; rather, the overall housing programme was shown to be deficit-ridden.

Conclusion: The Vice-Chairman had authority to approve the price, and no unlawful profit-making was proved.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed on maintainability and on merits, as the impugned pricing and surcharge were within the Authority's delegated powers and did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a public authority enters into an ordinary sale contract on disclosed terms, pricing decisions made within a valid delegated regulatory framework are not open to challenge under Article 14 merely because some schemes or periods were priced differently, unless hostile discrimination within the relevant class or lack of authority is shown.

---