Industrial Assistance Group, Government of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Shri Ashutosh Ahluwalia and Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2151 of 1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.12.98 of the M.R.T.P. Commission, New Delhi in U.T.P.E.No. 271 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.12.98 of the M.R.T.P. Commission, New Delhi in U.T.P.E.No. 271 of 1996)
Petitioner: Industrial Assistance Group, Government of Haryana & Anr.
Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Ahluwalia and Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2151 of 1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.12.98 of the M.R.T.P. Commission, New Delhi in U.T.P.E.No. 271 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.12.98 of the M.R.T.P. Commission, New Delhi in U.T.P.E.No. 271 of 1996)
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 21, 2001
Appearances:
Mr. Mahabir Singh, Mr. S.P. Sharma, Advocates for the Appellants.
Mr. Ashutosh Ahluwalia, in-person for the Respondents.
Head Note:
MONOPOLY
MRTP Act, 1969
Sections 36A and 12B – Unfair trade practice – Government issuing advertisement inviting applications for allotment of industrial plots – Respondent applying for a plot – Respondent called for discussions and asked to submit project report – Subsequently, Government informing allotment of a plot to ~4~ Respond-ent giving his consent as sought for and also making payment of earnest money – Subsequent change in policy of Government to offer such plots only through auction – Government revoking the allotment and returning the earnest money without interest – Respondent moving MRTP Commission alleging unfair trade practice – Commission directing allotment of plot in terms of pre-amended policy of Government. Held, since the process of allotment to respondent had already been completed, the changed policy, appli-cable only where the allotment process had not been completed, was not applicable in respect of the respondent. Commission, therefore, justified in directing allotment of land and comple-tion of formalities.
Held:
In our view, the impugned order suffers from no infirmity. The appellants could not have, on the basis of the changed policy of 15th July, 1996, refused to complete the formalities so far as the 1st respondent is concerned. In the case of 1st respondent there had already been an allotment. Thus the process of allot-ment had been completed. In this view of the matter the Commis-sion was right in issuing the directions that it did. As the allotment was completed the 1st respondent could not be asked to pay any rate higher than the one on which he had been allotted the plot. We see no reason to interfere. (Para 8)
Cases Reffered:
1. Principal, Madhav Institute of Technology & Science v. Rajen-dra Singh Yadav ((2000) 6 SCC 608) (Para 7)
2. HUDA v. Sunit Rekhi (JT 1989 (2) SC 205) (Para 7)
3. M.P. Ration Vikreta Sangh Society v. State of M.P. ((1981) 4 SCC 535) (Para 7)
2. HUDA v. Sunit Rekhi (JT 1989 (2) SC 205) (Para 7)
3. M.P. Ration Vikreta Sangh Society v. State of M.P. ((1981) 4 SCC 535) (Para 7)
JUDGEMENT:
S.N. VARIAVA, J.
1. This appeal is against an order dated 24th December, 1998 passed by the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission).
2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :
Sometime in September/October1994, the 2nd respondent issued an advertisement inviting applications from prospective entrepreneurs for allotment of industrial plots of 1, 1/2, 1/4 acre at Rs. 750 per sq. meters in the Electronic Hardware Technology Part, Sector 34, Gurgaon. The 1st respondent applied on a pre-scribed form for allotment of a 1/2 acre plot. Along with his application he paid a sum of Rs. 1,57,500/-.
3. On 8th November, 1994, the Plot Allotment Committee called the 1st respondent for personal discussion and evaluation of his project report. The 1st respondent attended the personal discus-sion and discussed the viability of his project with the con-cerned authorities. Thereafter the appellants asked the 1st respondent to submit his project report to them. The 1st respond-ent did so. By a letter dated 29th June, 1995 the appellants informed the 1st respondent that it was decided that he would be offered an industrial plot measuring 500 sq. meters at Udyog Vihar Phase – 6, Gurgaon or 1/8 acre industrial plot at Industrial State, Bahadurgarh and that he should give his acceptance to one of the two plots. The 1st respondent by a letter dated 10th July, 1995 conveyed his acceptance of the plot of 500 sq. meters at Udyog Vihar, Phase-6, Gurgaon.
4. The 1st respondent was then informed that he had been allotted plot no. 74 measuring 500 sq. meters at Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. He was also told by the 2nd respondent that he should give his consent to have his application and earnest money transferred to the appellants. The 1st respondent gave his consent on 19th February, 1996 and the earnest money of Rs. 1,57,500/- was trans-ferred to the appellants. Thus the offer of 500 sq. meters plot at Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon was accepted and in pursuance of such concluded contract, an allotment was made. In spite of allotment of a specific plot, the appellants did nothing.
5. The Government of Haryana issued directions on 15th July, 1996. By these it was directed that plots in High Potential Zone, which included Gurgaon, could only be sold by an open auction and where the process of allotment had not been completed, the appli-cation money should be returned and such plot should be put to auction in terms of the new policy. As a result of this, the 1st respondent was informed that his allotment stood cancelled. The earnest money deposited by him, which had been kept by the 2nd respondent and then by the appellants from 1994 onwards, was returned without any interest. The 1st respondent refused to encash the bank draft sent to him. He represented that he had already been allotted a plot and the same should be given to him. As his representation was not considered, the 1st respondent filed a complaint under Section 12(B) read with Section 36A of the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 before the Commission. In the course of hearing before the Commission it was discovered that plot no. 74, which had been allotted to the 1st respondent was 456 sq. mts. and not 500 sq. mts.
6. The Commission after hearing the parties has passed the im-pugned order dated 24th December, 1998. The Commission has inter alia directed as follows:
“It is also directed that the applicant/complainant be given a plot measuring not less than 500 sq. mts. in Udyog Vihar Phase VI for his project @ Rs. 750/- per sq. mts. We also direct that the respondents compensate the complianant by paying interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of earnest money in excess of 10% of the value of the plot 500 sq. mts. The value of the plot shall be calculated @ Rs. 750/- per sq. mts. which was the prevailing rate at the relevant time.”
7. Mr. Mahabir Singh submitted that the appellants were bound to comply with the directions of the Government issued on 15th July, 1996. He submitted that as per these directions the plot could only by sold in an open auction and as the process of allotment had not been completed inasmuch as the Deed had not been executed in favour of the 1st respondent the appellants were bound to refund the application money and put up the plot for auction. He relied upon the case of M.P. Ration Vikreta Sangh Society v. State of M.P. reported in ((1981) 4 SCC 535), for the preposition that the frame of a scheme is a matter of Government policy in which Court’s interference could not be called for. He also relied upon the case of Principal, Madhav Institute of Technology & Science v. Rajendra Singh Yadav reported in ((2000) 6 SCC 608), for the same preposition. He submitted that therefore the im-pugned order could not be sustained and should be set aside. Alternatively, he submitted that if an allotment had to be made to the 1st respondent, then it should be at the rates now pre-vailing. He submitted that even if the Court is not willing to direct the 1st respondent to pay the rates now prevailing, the Court should direct payment of some higher rate. In support of this submission he relied upon the case of HUDA v. Sunit Rekhi reported in (JT 1989 (2) SC 205 = 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 169). In this case there has been a sale of large number of plots by the Development Authority. Subsequently, the allotments were sought to be set aside and the plots were proposed to be sold by fresh auction. Majority of the old allottees purchased the plots in the fresh auction at a higher rate. Some of the old allottees did not accept this and filed a writ petition. This Court ultimately held that as the majority had paid a higher rate it would be unfair to allow the minority to get the plots at old rates and directed payment of 50% more than the old rate. Those directions were given on the peculiar facts of that case and not as a matter of principle. Such a direction can have no application to the facts of the present case.
8. In our view, the impugned order suffers from no infirmity. The appellants could not have, on the basis of the changed policy of 15th July, 1996, refused to complete the formalities so far as the 1st respondent is concerned. In the case of 1st respondent there had already been an allotment. Thus the process of allot-ment had been completed. In this view of the matter the Commis-sion was right in issuing the directions that it did. As the allotment was completed the 1st respondent could not be asked to pay any rate higher than the one on which he had been allotted the plot. We see no reason to interfere.
9. The appeal stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
1. This appeal is against an order dated 24th December, 1998 passed by the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission).
2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :
Sometime in September/October1994, the 2nd respondent issued an advertisement inviting applications from prospective entrepreneurs for allotment of industrial plots of 1, 1/2, 1/4 acre at Rs. 750 per sq. meters in the Electronic Hardware Technology Part, Sector 34, Gurgaon. The 1st respondent applied on a pre-scribed form for allotment of a 1/2 acre plot. Along with his application he paid a sum of Rs. 1,57,500/-.
3. On 8th November, 1994, the Plot Allotment Committee called the 1st respondent for personal discussion and evaluation of his project report. The 1st respondent attended the personal discus-sion and discussed the viability of his project with the con-cerned authorities. Thereafter the appellants asked the 1st respondent to submit his project report to them. The 1st respond-ent did so. By a letter dated 29th June, 1995 the appellants informed the 1st respondent that it was decided that he would be offered an industrial plot measuring 500 sq. meters at Udyog Vihar Phase – 6, Gurgaon or 1/8 acre industrial plot at Industrial State, Bahadurgarh and that he should give his acceptance to one of the two plots. The 1st respondent by a letter dated 10th July, 1995 conveyed his acceptance of the plot of 500 sq. meters at Udyog Vihar, Phase-6, Gurgaon.
4. The 1st respondent was then informed that he had been allotted plot no. 74 measuring 500 sq. meters at Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. He was also told by the 2nd respondent that he should give his consent to have his application and earnest money transferred to the appellants. The 1st respondent gave his consent on 19th February, 1996 and the earnest money of Rs. 1,57,500/- was trans-ferred to the appellants. Thus the offer of 500 sq. meters plot at Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon was accepted and in pursuance of such concluded contract, an allotment was made. In spite of allotment of a specific plot, the appellants did nothing.
5. The Government of Haryana issued directions on 15th July, 1996. By these it was directed that plots in High Potential Zone, which included Gurgaon, could only be sold by an open auction and where the process of allotment had not been completed, the appli-cation money should be returned and such plot should be put to auction in terms of the new policy. As a result of this, the 1st respondent was informed that his allotment stood cancelled. The earnest money deposited by him, which had been kept by the 2nd respondent and then by the appellants from 1994 onwards, was returned without any interest. The 1st respondent refused to encash the bank draft sent to him. He represented that he had already been allotted a plot and the same should be given to him. As his representation was not considered, the 1st respondent filed a complaint under Section 12(B) read with Section 36A of the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 before the Commission. In the course of hearing before the Commission it was discovered that plot no. 74, which had been allotted to the 1st respondent was 456 sq. mts. and not 500 sq. mts.
6. The Commission after hearing the parties has passed the im-pugned order dated 24th December, 1998. The Commission has inter alia directed as follows:
“It is also directed that the applicant/complainant be given a plot measuring not less than 500 sq. mts. in Udyog Vihar Phase VI for his project @ Rs. 750/- per sq. mts. We also direct that the respondents compensate the complianant by paying interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of earnest money in excess of 10% of the value of the plot 500 sq. mts. The value of the plot shall be calculated @ Rs. 750/- per sq. mts. which was the prevailing rate at the relevant time.”
7. Mr. Mahabir Singh submitted that the appellants were bound to comply with the directions of the Government issued on 15th July, 1996. He submitted that as per these directions the plot could only by sold in an open auction and as the process of allotment had not been completed inasmuch as the Deed had not been executed in favour of the 1st respondent the appellants were bound to refund the application money and put up the plot for auction. He relied upon the case of M.P. Ration Vikreta Sangh Society v. State of M.P. reported in ((1981) 4 SCC 535), for the preposition that the frame of a scheme is a matter of Government policy in which Court’s interference could not be called for. He also relied upon the case of Principal, Madhav Institute of Technology & Science v. Rajendra Singh Yadav reported in ((2000) 6 SCC 608), for the same preposition. He submitted that therefore the im-pugned order could not be sustained and should be set aside. Alternatively, he submitted that if an allotment had to be made to the 1st respondent, then it should be at the rates now pre-vailing. He submitted that even if the Court is not willing to direct the 1st respondent to pay the rates now prevailing, the Court should direct payment of some higher rate. In support of this submission he relied upon the case of HUDA v. Sunit Rekhi reported in (JT 1989 (2) SC 205 = 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 169). In this case there has been a sale of large number of plots by the Development Authority. Subsequently, the allotments were sought to be set aside and the plots were proposed to be sold by fresh auction. Majority of the old allottees purchased the plots in the fresh auction at a higher rate. Some of the old allottees did not accept this and filed a writ petition. This Court ultimately held that as the majority had paid a higher rate it would be unfair to allow the minority to get the plots at old rates and directed payment of 50% more than the old rate. Those directions were given on the peculiar facts of that case and not as a matter of principle. Such a direction can have no application to the facts of the present case.
8. In our view, the impugned order suffers from no infirmity. The appellants could not have, on the basis of the changed policy of 15th July, 1996, refused to complete the formalities so far as the 1st respondent is concerned. In the case of 1st respondent there had already been an allotment. Thus the process of allot-ment had been completed. In this view of the matter the Commis-sion was right in issuing the directions that it did. As the allotment was completed the 1st respondent could not be asked to pay any rate higher than the one on which he had been allotted the plot. We see no reason to interfere.
9. The appeal stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
