Contractual matters involving disputed facts and detailed accounting are not suitable for writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Prakash Tatia, J.-The present writ petition has been filed by the allottees of the houses from the Rajasthan Housing Board in a self-financing scheme known as Parijat Yojna. The scheme was announced in the year 1988. The structures of the houses were constructed by the Rajasthan Housing Baord and houses were allotted to the allottees in the year 1992. As per the petitioner society, the Rajasthan Housing Board was under legal obligation as per the terms and conditions of the Parijat Housing Scheme, which according to the petitioner-society, is a non-statutory contract but binding upon both the parties and, therefore the allottees are entitled to all the benefits in terms of the agreement between the allottees and Rajasthan Housing Board. The present writ petition has been filed by 17 allottees by forming a society named Meera Park Vikas Samiti, when Rajasthan Housing Board issued the demand notices to the allottees in the year 2001. Copy of the one of the demand notice dated 26.03.2001 has been placed on record by the petitioner-society as (Annexure-12). The members of the petitioner-society are aggrieved against the said demand notices.

2. It will be relevant to mention here that the allottees of the houses from the Rajasthan Housing Board had grievances earlier also, therefore, they preferred writ petition before this Court. The facts leading to the filing of the earlier writ petition are that according to the petitioners, Rajasthan Housing Board should have given possession of the home skeleton within a period of one year but they failed to deliver the possession of the home skeleton despite the fact that entire due amount (50% of the total amount) was deposited by the allottees. According to the petitioner-society even houses were not constructed by the Rajasthan Housing Board, what to say of delivery of possession of the houses to the allottees. Ultimately houses were allotted periodically to the allottees in the year 1991. It appears from the averment made in the petition that the Rajasthan Housing Board allotted the houses in different batches to the allottees and demanded the different amount from the allottees, which were Rs. 1,60,354/-, Rs. 2,14,126/-and Rs. 2,40,544/-from the allottees of first and second batch and from third and fourth batch. This classification made by the Rajasthan Housing Board was one of the cause of grievance of the allottees and they preferred writ petition before this Court and raised several issues which are not very much relevant at this stage, however, during pendency of the earlier writ petition, the matter was considered by the Rajasthan Housing Board and some relief was granted to the allottees in construction cost. The Rajasthan Housing Board further reduced the lease money from 3% to 2.5% per annum and issued reduced demand notices, to the allotttees for payment. It is said that in the reduced demand notices, only construction cost was reduced but the lease money was demanded @ 3%. The writ petition of the various petitioners was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 111.1992 wherein it has been held that the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board cannot demand increased land cost from the allottees and the lease money can be 2.5% and not 3%. No relief was given to the allottees so far as it was relating to the construction cost of the structure is concerned. The Rajasthan Housing Board as well as the allottees preferred appeals against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 111.1992. The Rajasthan Housing Board prayed that price of the land should not have been reduced whereas the allottees demanded that they should have been given benefit in the construction cost also. An interim order was passed by the Division Bench saying the order of the learned Single Judge on the condition that the allottees will give an undertaking before the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of the Rajasthan High Court that in case the appeal will succeed the allottees will m