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.