D.A.DESAI, J.

(1) ALLOTTEES of flats, constructed by the Delhi Develonment Authority (Authority for short), located at Raiouri Garden, Prasad Nagar and Lawrence Road comprised in Middle Income Group Scheme, question the decision of first respondent (Dehi Development Authority) to collect surcharge as part of the sale price of each flat from each of them as unauthorised and discriminatory in character, in these two petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. Both the petitions raise identical contentions and it was said that Writ Petition No. 562 of 1979 is more comprehensive in character and. therefore, the facts alleged therein may be taken as representative in character. They may be briefly stated.

(2) DELHI Development Authority was set up under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The Act was enacted to orovide for the development of Delhi according to plan and for matters ancillary thereto and for carrying out the obiects underlying the Act. the Authoritv has preoared Master and Zonal development plans for Delhi. With . a view to easing the acute housing problems in the capital citv the Authoritv undertakes construction of dwelling units for people belonging to different income groups stvied as Middle Income Group fMIG for short). Low Income Groun ("LIG for short), Jantn and Communitv Personnel Service ("CPS for short). In 1971 the Authority commenced registration of intending applicants desirous of having a dwelling unit in different income groups. Some of the petitioners got themselves registered with the authoritv in accordance with the terms and conditions aid down bv it and made the initial deposits as reouired bv the terms and conditions. Petitioners had applied and "ot themselves registered for allotment of flats in MIG scheme situated at Lawrence Road. As the number of available flats in this scheme were less than the number of allottees registered, lots were drawn and the petitioners were informed that they have been allotted flats and that each of them should deposit the amount mentioned in the letter of allotment. It appears that the petitioners paid the amount they were called upon to pay nnd a flat was allotted to each of them and thev have entered into possessior. Petitioners now contend that the Authority being a statutory body formed with an object of working on no profit no loss basis and having prescribed a formula for working out the cost price of flats has levied and collected a surcharge from each of. the petitioners. According to the peti- tioners the cost price worked out in accordance with the formula prescribed by the Authority, cost of each flat would be between Rs. 51,800.00 and Rs. 55,600.00 depending upon the area, extra balcony etc. However, each one of them had to pay between Rs. 56,000.00 to Rs.60,000.00 and that according to the petitioners a surcharge varying from Rs. 3,400.00 to Rs. 6,000.00 for a flat has been illegally and unlawfully collected by way of premium or profit. It is further alleged that the Authority has not levied and collected such surcharge from other allottees of flats in some other MIG Schemes and that this action of levying and collecting surcharge is violative of Article 14 inasmuch as persons belonging to the same class, namely, allottees of flats in MIG scheme have been unequally treated. It is also alleged that there was no valid or understandable justification for levying and collecting surcharge as price of flats comprised in MIG Schemes, between 1976 and 1977, and that from 10/05/1978, this unauthorised surcharge has been abolished. Petitioners also contend that the assertion of the Authority that this surcharge was levied and collected with a view to financing housing projects for lower incame groups, Janta and CSP dwelling units so as to provide these weaker S. of the society, houses at a price lower than cost price with a view to making them affordable by such members of the weaker S. of the society, is belied by facts undisputed and that the w