TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MENT Tarun Chatterjee, J. - This appeal by way of special leave is filed against an order dated 27-3-2001 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (in short the MRTP Commission ) in Restrictive Trade Practices Enquiry No. 82/97 by which the MRTP Commission has directed the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the Noida Authorities ) to refund to the respondent the excess amount charged from him for allotment of a plot within 6 months from the date of the order passed by the MRTP Commission. Feeling aggrieved, the Noida Authorities have come up by way of a special leave petition, which on grant of leave was heard in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. In 1993, applications for registration for allotment of plots to institutions including Nursing Homes and Hospitals were invited by a general scheme by the Noida Authorities. In the scheme itself, it was specifically mentioned that the rate shall be the one as prevailing at the time of allotment. The registration money to be deposited along with the application in case of a Nursing Home was Rs. 1,00,000. Pursuant to such advertisement for allotment of plots by the Noida author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. After the affidavit was filed by the respondent, on 17-8-1996, a lease deed was executed by the Noida authorities in favour of the respondent. This lease deed also contained the terms and conditions of allotment, more particularly the rate of the land, i.e., Rs. 3,600 per sq. mtr. After executing the lease deed, accepting the rate of the land at Rs. 3,600 per sq. mtr. and depositing the consideration money at the aforesaid rate with the Noida authorities, a petition was filed before the MRTP Commission by the respondent against the Noida authorities under sections 10( a )( i )(1), 36A and 13 of the MRTP Act praying for instituting an enquiry and thereafter passing the cease and desist order and demanding the excess amount paid by him. In the said petition, the respondent had also alleged that he was discriminated inasmuch as one Dr. Bhardwaj who was allotted a bigger plot in 1997 was charged the rate that prevailed in the year 1993. Therefore, the respondent had prayed that the benefit of the old rate, i.e., Rs. 2,750 per sq.mtr. should be extended to the respondent also as it was done in the case of Dr. Bhardwaj. 5. An affidavit of evidence was filed by the Noida auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TP Commission, which is under challenge before us. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after examining the impugned order of the MRTP Commission and other materials on record, we are unable to sustain the impugned order of the MRTP Commission for the reasons stated hereinafter. It is true that in the year 1993, a letter was issued by the Noida authorities, offering a plot of land for starting a nursing home, to the respondent in respect of which the consideration money was fixed at Rs. 2,750 per sq.mtr. It is an admitted position that this offer of the Noida authorities was not accepted by the respondent as we find from the record that the amount under the offer letter was not deposited by the respondent. On the other hand, the Noida authorities also could not allot the plot offered in the said letter of 1993 and the amount of Rs. 1,00,000, which was deposited by the respondent with them was refunded by account-payee cheque and the same was duly encashed by the respondent without raising any objection. Therefore, the respondent, having accepted the refunded money without raising any objection could not turn around and say that the offer letter of 1993 was an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not open to the respondent to approach the MRTP Commission and say that the allotment must be made at the old rate, i.e., at the rate of Rs. 2,750 per sq.mtr. and not at the rate of Rs. 3,600 per sq. mtr. We are, therefore, unable to accept the impugned order of the MRTP Commission on this count. 8. A further submission was made by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the respondent was discriminated against because one Dr. Bhardwaj was allotted a plot of 500 sq. mtr. in 1997 at the rate of Rs. 2,750 per sq. mtr. which rate was also offered by the Noida authorities to the respondent in the year 1993. In our view, this submission of the respondent cannot also be accepted. In the year 1997, Dr. Bhardwaj was given a bigger plot of 800 sq.mtr. in place of the old plot of 500 sq. mtr. at the same rate of Rs. 2,750 per sq.mtr. but it is also an admitted position that for the excess area of 300 sq. mtrs., the market rate on the date of allotment was charged from him, i.e., Rs. 3,600 per sq. mtr. was charged for the excess area of 300 sq. mtrs. That apart, it appears from the record that the fact of discrimination to the respondent in respect of allotment of plot for the nur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
