1. Sri B. Janaki Rama Rao Naik v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not ...RESPONDENTS considering the request of petitioners for return of FDR's amount of Rs. 2,76,0001 to each petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, high handedness and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles '14 and 300-4 of Constitution of India apart from being in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to furnish all the details of FDR's of petitioners and to pay damages and FDR amounts along with interest to the petitioners lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Pelition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to return the FDR amount of Rs- 2,76,0001 along with interest to each petitioner until pending disposal of the above writ petition lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to return the FCR receipts for an amount of Rs. 2,76,0001 to petitioners 1 to 5 herein until pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. B N SWAMIJI Counsel forthe Respondent NO.1: GP FOR HOUSING Counsel for the Respondent NOs.2&3: SRI C. BUCHI REDDY SC FOR TSHB The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.31799 OF 2o24 ORDER: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Housing appearing for respondent No. 1, Sri C. Buchi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Housing Board appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.

2. Shorn of unneccssary details, the case of the petitioners in brief, is that they have purchased flats in building named as " Sampoorrtd' situated at Phase XV, Ven-lll in Sy. Nos.962lP and 1009 at KPHB Colony, Moosapet Circle 23, Medchal Malkajgiri District constructed by the 2"d respondent; that the tentative cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.3O,80,00O/-; and that the respondent authorities thereafter informed the petitioners that the final cost has been determined at Rs.47,85,OOO/ -.

3. Petitioners further contend that on the respondent aulhorities intimating the final cost as Rs.47,85,OOO l-, t}:e petitioners have made the aforesaid payment of final price and on such payment the respondent authorities have also executed 2_ the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners dunng the year 2022-2023.

4. Petitioners further contend that notwithstanding the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioners on payment of the final price of the flat as communicated by the respondent authority, the respondent authority is not returning the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) collected an amount of Rs.2,76,OOO l- from each of the petitioners in tlte year 2017 before finalization of the hnal cost of flats sold to them, despite thc petitioners approaching the respondents and seeking for return of the fixed Deposit receipts, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly i11egal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

5. Counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is fi1ed.

6. By the counter afhdavit, it is contended that initially the tentative / estimated cost of the flat u,as fixed at Rs.30,80,OOO/- and thereafter the final cost was arrived at Rs.47,85,OOO/ which the buyers of the flats like petitioners are required to pay.

7. By the counter-afhdavit, it is contended that on a challenge being made to the final cost intimated by the respondent authority; some of the flat allottees have approached J this Court earlier by hling a Writ Petition, uideW.P. No.391.1{-of 2O13 and this Court had directed the petitioners therein to furnish the FDRs towards the differential cost as the Contractor engaged by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 -had claimed the additional amounts.

8. The respondents by the counter-affidavit while not disputing the fact of petitioners having paid the amount of Rs.47,85,00O/- being the hnal cost intimated to them would however, claim that since the claim of the Contractor against the Housing Board is yet to be adjudicated, the petitioners are not entitled to seek return of FDRs and thus the present Writ Petition as hled is without any merit.

9. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

10. It is to be noted that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein had invited applications for allotment of flats being construcled by them from the intending purchasers on the promise that the aforesaid flats would be constructed and delivered to them in a time bound manner with a tentative / estimated cost of Rs.3O,80,OOO/- Many aspiring purchasers had shown interest [o purchase the aforesaid flats as the same are being constructed by the 2nd respondent herein who is an instrumentality of the State. Hor.r,ever, the intending purchasers t I 4 like the petitioners were in for a surprise on account of the 2nd respondent not only having failed to deiiver the consrructed flal within the time mentioned, but on the other hand were issued with intimations informing them that the final cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.47,85,000/ - and directing him to pay the difference amount.

11. Upon the respondent rssuing such intimation, about 135 flat purchasers have approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC) claiming that the respondent authority cannot claim additional amount, more so when the delivery of the flats was delayed and as such the purchasers of the flats are not entitled to pay the difference of amount.

12. The applicants before the NCDRC also further claimed that since the intending purchasers have already paid the cost initially fixed, the respondents are to be directed to pay the interest to the allottees of the flats on the amounts paid by it before making the demand of additional amount claiming as fina1 price.

13. The NCDRC by its order dated 15.11.2021 had approved the final cost to be in a sum of Rs.47,85,0OO/- which was arrived at by taking into consideration the liabilities that the 2"d 5 respondent had incurred to arrive at the final cost of flat inclusive of car parking area, taxes, water and electricity charges etc.,

14. Further, the NCDRC having regard to the covenants of the agreement entered into by the 2"d respondent with the allottees and also taking note of the payment schedule mentioned therein had directed the 2"d respondent herein to pay interest at the rate of 6%o p.a. on the amount paid by the purchasers of flats from the due date of possession till the date of offer of possession after obtaining occupancy certificate. By the aforesaid order, the NCDRC also imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/ - on the 2"d respondent to be paid for each of the complainalt.

15. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the NCDRC, the 2nd respondent herein had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, uide Civil Appeal No.7168 of 2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 08.05.2023 while setting aside the order of NCDRC to the extent of direction for payment of cost had confirmed the final cost of flat to be in a sum of Rs.47,85,O00/-, after giving due credit of the interest payable at the rate of 6%o p.a. in the amounts paid by the buyers of the flats, as directed by the NCDRC. I 6

16. Pursuant to the disposal of the Civil Appeal by the Hon,ble Supreme Court, the 2"d respondent had given effecL to the order of the NCDRC insofar as the 135 flat purchasers who were the complainarrts before the IVCOnC are concerned. 17. Though it is claimed on behalf of the respondents that in a Writ Petition hled in the year 20 13, the applicants lor allotment of flats were directed to furnish FDRs towards unascertained amount, as final cost was to be arrived at by taking into consideration the expenses which the 2.d respondent is 1ike1y to incur, the claim of the respondents that the FDRs furnished by the petitioners even after final cost of flat was determined at Rs.47,85,O00/- does not appear to be a valid claim anymore. i8. Further, the 2nd respondent b'efore the NCDRC in order to justify the claim for enhanced cost of the flat in a sum of Rs.47,85,OO0/ - had shted the final price be inclusive of various costs it had to incur like the funds which it had procured from the public sector hnancial institutions such as HUDCO., Thus, it is not open for the 2d respondent now to claim that on account of a claim filed by one the Contractor against it, is pending and thus, the final cost as communicated to the applicants like petitioners has not attained finalitv cannot be . 7 accepted, and as such the request of the petitioners for return of FDRs in the considered opinion of this Court is not a valid submission, in view of the categorical assertion made by the respondent before NCDRC as affirmed by the Supreme Court with regard to final price of the flat. lg. Further, it is also to be noted that the petitioners cannot be liable to pay the claims that are made against the 2"d respondents by the Contractors engaged by it inasmuch as there is no privity of contract vis-a-vis the Contraclors engaged by it. Further, the claim of the 2"d respondent by the present counter affidavit runs contrary to the claim made by them before the NCDRC with regard to hxation of the final cost to be in a sum of Rs.47,85,0O0/-. 20- [n view of the above, this Court is of the view that the claim of the respondents by the countcr-affidavit is liable to be rejected and accordingly, the said counter hled on behalf of the respondents is rejected.

21. Though it is contended by the respondents by_, their counter-afhdavit that the petitioners had hled the Writ Petition earlier and had wrthdrawn the same, it is to be noted that the issue of final cost of flat had attained finality only by virtue of the order of the NCDRC dated 15.1I.2O2I as affirmed by the I I 8 Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 08.05.2023, tt-Le withdrawal of the earlier Writ Petition fited by the petitioners would not come in the way of maintaining thc present Writ Petition.

22. Further, it is also to be noted that the 2r1,:i respondent having implemented the order of NCDRC insofar as the 135 applicants whose cases were dealt with by the NCDRC, cannot take a different p1ea, when it comes to the petitioners claiming that the petitioners herein are required to continue to mainLain the FDRs till the claim filed by a contractor against it is decided. 23. In vieu, of thc above discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed and the 2"d rcspondcnt is hereby direcl-ed to return thc F ixed Deposit Receipts furnished by the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// A SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD GISTRAR 'iflUI!' 'r secrroru iJ OFFICER 1- The Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hvderabad - 500022. Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad - 50001.

2. The Vice Chairman Telangana Housing Board, and Housing Commissioner, 3. The Exeiutive Enbin6er (Housing) Telangana State Housing Board, .Western Division, 4th Floor, T.H.B. Commbrcial Complex, Opp. Shivaparvathi Theater Main Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500072. 4. One CC to SRl. B N SWAMIJI Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI C. BUCHI REDDY SC FOR TSHB [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOUSING, High Court for the State of Telangana, \ To, KKS

7. Two CD Copies 6 ,l I ,| HIGH COURT DATED:0510212025 o o k t IHE Sra 4 <J^ ( r \, 7- C) d 06 IIAfi ?a2 5 AT HT, t ORDER WP.No.31799 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS gf"e' w