JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioners mainly pray for quashing that portion of the hire purchase agreement whereby the price of the Low
Income Group (LIG) flats have been fixed by the respondent-Bihar State Housing Board and further for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents-Board to reduce the price fixed in the hire purchase agreement.
2. The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the advertisement issued in the newspaper dated 9.7.1989 inviting applications by the respondent-Board for allotment of 1114 LIG flats at Balidih, Bokaro, the petitioners applied for the said flats and deposited earnest money of Rs. 5000/-. In 1990 lottery for allotment of the flats was held and the flats in question were allotted to the petitioners. It is contended that inordinate delay was made by the Board in completing the formalities for execution of the agreement and it was only in 1992 the price of the flats in question was fixed at Rs. 87,280/- and hire purchase agreements were executed by and between the petitioners and the Board separately. Copies of these hire purchase agreements have been annexed as Annexure 5 series.
3. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly assailed the price fixed in the said agreement on the ground of discrimination. According to the learned counsel in respect of same and similar flats less price was fixed by the Board while making allotment to other persons. Learned counsel further submitted that because of the laches on the part of Board more than one year delay was caused in execution of the agreement and, therefore, the price of the flats was increased.
4. Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, who was directed to appear for the Bihar and Jharkhand State Housing Board, has drawn my attention to paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit and submitted that the calculation of the price of the flats as on 30.6.1992 and 31.2.1992 were tentatively fixed at Rs. 87,280/- and Rs. 84,560 and, as such, there is nothing wrong in such calculation and the petitioners entered into hire purchase agreement without any objection.
5. Admittedly the price of the flats in question was calculated and finally fixed at the aforesaid amounts and the petitioners
executed hire purchase agreement. It does not appear from the writ petition that either the petitioners entered into hire purchase agreement with objection or without prejudice to their rights to raise objection with regard to fixation of price. There is also nothing in the writ petition to show that after execution of hire purchase agreement the petitioners filed representation or objections requesting the Board for reducing the price fixed in the agreement. It was only after two years from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. in 1994 the Instance writ petition was filed for quashing one of the clauses of the hire purchase agreement whereby price was fixed. I am afraid this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, can issue a declaration or any direction that the price fixed in the hire purchase agreement is excessive or arbitrary and mala fide.
6. Mr. Anwar, learned counsel for the petitioner put reliance on the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Ltd. v. Brajo Nath Ganguly and Ors., reported in 1986 (3) SCC 156 and submitted that the price fixed in the agreement can be declared as arbitrary and opposed to public policy. I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel. In my opinion, the ratio decided by the Apex Court cannot be made applicable in the facts of the present case. Learned counsel further relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Computer Ltd. v. M. & N. Publications Ltd., reported in 1993 (1) SCC 445, for the proposition that such action in commercial/contractual transaction with private party is always open to judicial review. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court but I fail to understand as to how the ratio decided in the said case is applicable in the present case.
7. As noticed above, the petitioners entered into hire purchase agreement with the respondent-Board in 1992 voluntarily, willfully and without any undue influence and accepted the price fixed in the said agreement. No objection, whatsoever, was raised with regard to the price fixed in the said agreement. The petitioners now cannot
be allowed to turn back and say that the price fixed in the hire purchase agreement is excessive or arbitrary.
8. For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merit in this writ application which is, accordingly, dismissed.