Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2151 of 1999
PETITIONER:
GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHRI ASHUTOSH AHLUWALIA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/03/2001
BENCH:
S. Rajendra Babu & S.N. Variava
JUDGMENT:
S. N. VARIAVA, J.
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
This Appeal is against an Order dated 24th December,
1998 passed by the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices
Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission).
Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
Sometime in September/October 1994 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 prescribed form for
allotment of a 1/2 acre plot. Along with his Application he
paid a sum of Rs. 1,57,500/-.
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 discussion and discussed the viability
of his project with the concerned authorities. Thereafter
the Appellants asked the 1st Respondent to submit his
project report to them. The 1st Respondent 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.
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 transferred to the
Appellants. Thus the offer of 500 Sq. meters plot at Udyog
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
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.
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 application 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.
The Commission after hearing the parties has passed the
impugned Order dated 24th December, 1998. The Commission
has inter alia directed as follows:
"It is also directed that the applicant/complaint 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 complaint
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."
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 a 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 impugned 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 prevailing. 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 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
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.
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 allotment had been
completed. In this view of the matter the Commission 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.
The Appeal stands dismissed. There will be no Order as
to costs.