http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5514 of 2001

PETITIONER: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Anr

RESPONDENT: Arvind Sonekar

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/2008

BENCH: TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5514 OF 2001

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1.      This appeal by way of special leave is filed against an order  dated 27th of March, 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 Authorites 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 authorities, the respondent submitted an  application for allotment along with the registration money. By a  letter dated 21st of December, 1993 issued by the Noida authorities  to the respondent, the respondent was required to deposit certain  amount within seven days so that steps could be taken to make the  allotment. However, the respondent made no payment pursuant to  the letter dated 21st of December, 1993. The Town Planning  Department of the Noida authorities, while scrutinizing the  proposed site did not clear the same and accordingly, by a letter  dated 13th of January, 1995, the entire amount deposited as  registration money with the Noida authorities was refunded. It is  an admitted position that the refund was accepted by the  respondent by encashing the account payee cheque without any  reservation. 3.       On 20th of April, 1996, on the basis of a request made by  the respondent in his letter dated 29th of January, 1996, a fresh  allotment letter was issued and in this allotment letter, it was  specifically made clear that the allotment rate would be Rs.3600/-  per sq. mtr. From this letter, it would also be clear that the  allotment money was required to be deposited within sixty days  and the balance 80% in sixteen equal half yearly installments  together with interest. The respondent by his letter dated 6th of  June, 1996 deposited 20% of the allotment money of Rs.3,61,800/-  by a pay order. This deposit confirmed that the rate of allotment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

was Rs.3600/- per sq. mtr., i.e. the rate offered by the Noida  authorities stood accepted. On 16th of August, 1996, the respondent  submitted an affidavit before the Noida authorities stating, inter  alia, as under:  (i) That the allotment of Nursing Home Plot No.243, Block A,  Sector 31 has been made in favour of the respondent for  Rs.18,09,000/- only. Out of the said amount, 20% had been  deposited and the respondent had to deposit the balance 80% in  sixteen half yearly installments. (ii) Omitted (because not required in this case). (iii) That the respondent had read and understood all the terms and  conditions of allotment and the respondent shall comply with the  terms and conditions of allotment. A plain reading of this undertaking filed by way of an  affidavit before the Noida authorities would indicate that the  respondent had accepted the terms and conditions of the offer  letter, including the condition regarding the rate at which the  allotment was to be made.  4.      After the affidavit was filed by the respondent, on                  17th of August, 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.3600/- per sq. mtr. After executing the  lease deed, accepting the rate of the land at Rs.3600/- 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.2750/- 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 authorities  in which it was brought on record that as per the terms of the  scheme, the rate applicable was the one prevailing at the time of  issuance of the allotment. In the affidavit of evidence, it was  alleged by the Noida authorities that the letter dated 21st of  December, 1993 was only a proposal for allotment and that the  said letter could not be treated as an allotment letter. It was further  alleged that it was only in April 1996 that the allotment was first  made by them. Accordingly, they alleged that the question of  applying the old rate i.e. the rate of the year 1993 could not arise at  all. The MRTP Commission by the impugned order held that the  action of the Noida authorities directing the respondent to pay at  the rate prevailing in the year 1996 was discriminatory for the  simple reason that different rates were charged from the applicants  who were similarly placed and deserved similar treatment.  Therefore, it was held that this action of the Noida authorities was  a "restrictive trade practice" within the meaning of Section 2(o)(ii)  of the MRTP Act. It was further held by the MRTP Commission  that the offer of the Noida authorities to allot a plot in the year  1993 became a concluded contract between the Noida authorities  and the respondent as the respondent had accepted the offer of the  Noida Authorities and in pursuance thereof, an amount of Rs.  1,00,000/- was deposited with them within the time specified in the  offer letter. Accordingly, it was held that the same, being a  concluded contract, could not be terminated unilaterally and  without the consent of the other party to the contract. It was further  held by the MRTP Commission in the impugned order that in the  facts and circumstances of the case, the doctrine of legitimate  expectation should be brought into force because the respondent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

had legitimate expectation from the Noida authorities to implement  the public policy laid down for the allotment of sites for nursing  homes and clinic fairly and justly and accordingly, the action of the  Noida authorites had fallen within the meaning of "unfair trade  practices" as provided in Section 36A of the MRTP Act.  Accordingly, the Noida authorities were directed by the MRTP  Commission to refund the excess amount paid by the respondent,  that is to say the difference of money between Rs. 3600/- per  sq.mtr. and Rs. 2750/- per sq.mtr., to him. It is this order of the  MRTP 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. 2750/- 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 allotment letter and therefore, it  was a concluded contract between the parties. Furthermore, a  perusal of the said letter would not show that it was an allotment  letter. In our view, by this letter, a plot of land was only offered to  the respondent and there is nothing on record to show that the said  offer letter had culminated into an allotment letter. Therefore, in  view of the discussions made herein above, it is difficult to  conceive that the earlier offer letter @ Rs. 2750/- per sq. mtr. had  culminated into a concluded contract and the lease deed ought to  have been executed @ Rs. 2750/- per sq.mtr. as that was the offer  of the Noida authorites in the year 1993. That apart, after accepting  the rate of the land at Rs. 3600/- per sq. mtr. and executing the  lease deed at the accepted rate and after having already paid in  terms of the offer letter, it is not open to the respondent now to  allege that in view of the earlier concluded contract, he was liable  to pay @ Rs.2750/- per sq. mtr. in respect of the plot in question  and therefore, the Noida authorities were liable to refund the  excess amount paid by him.   It will not be out of place to mention  here that in the scheme itself, one of the conditions was that the  rate would be charged at the prevailing market price on the date of  allotment of the plot in question which, in this case was done only  in the month of April, 1996 and not in the month of December,  1993. In view of the foregoing reasons, it would be clear that the  offer letter of 1993 for allotment of a plot made by the Noida  authorites could not be treated as a concluded contract and  therefore, it was not at all an allotment letter.  7.      We are also of the view that the question of acceptance of  the proposal of allotment did not arise because the entire money  which was deposited with the Noida authorities in the year 1993  was admittedly, as noted herein earlier, refunded by them and the  same was also encashed by the respondent without raising any  objection. Secondly, the allotment that was made in the year 1996  was             @ Rs.3600/- per sq.mtr. which was accepted by the  respondent on deposit of the money. In our view, since the contract  was concluded by execution of the lease deed from which it  appears that the rate was to be given as per the market value of the  plot on the date of allotment, it was not open to the respondent to  approach the MRTP Commission and say that the allotment must

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

be made at the old rate, i.e.               @ Rs.2750/- per sq.mtr. and  not @ Rs.3600/- 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 @ Rs.2750/- 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.2750/-  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. 3600/- 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 Nursing Home was not even raised in evidence by the  respondent. Such being the position and in view of the concluded  contract after execution of the lease deed, it must be held that the  respondent had agreed to pay at the rate prevailing on the date of  offering the plot in question i.e. @ Rs. 3600/- per sq.mtr. and in  fact the respondent had even deposited the amount @ Rs.3600/-  per sq.mtr.  9.      In Chief Administrator, Puda & Anr. Vs. Shabnam Virk  (Mrs.) [(2006) 4 SCC 74], this court had taken into consideration  an affidavit filed by the respondent and observed at Paragraph 14  as follows :- "It is to be noted that the respondent herself had  accepted in the undertaking that she accepted the  allotment of the house and undertook to abide by all  the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. It is  not in dispute that in the allotment letter the figure as  demanded has been reflected. That being so, the  respondent was liable to pay the amount as stipulated  in the allotment letter." (Emphasis supplied).

In so far as the present case is concerned, as noted herein  earlier, there is no dispute that the respondent had in fact filed an  affidavit clearly accepting the amount shown as the price of the  plot in question and he had also given an undertaking to abide by  the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. It is, therefore, not  open to the respondent to claim the rate prevailing in the year  1993.  10.     Before parting with this judgment, we may deal with the  doctrine of legitimate expectation as was the ground taken by the  MRTP Commission to allow the petition of the respondent.  According to the respondent, this doctrine comes into play because  the respondent had legitimately expected the Noida authorities to  implement the public policy laid down for the allotment of sites for  Nursing Homes and Clinics fairly and justly. In our view, the  doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the facts and circumstances  of the present case, cannot at all be applicable. It is not in dispute  that the plot has been allotted by the Noida authorities to  implement the public policy laid down for the allotment of sites for  starting nursing homes and clinics. The only question is that to  implement such policy, what should be the rate at which the  allotment of the plot should be made. In view of the discussions  made herein above, we do not feel that the Noida authorities acted  either unjustly or in an unfair manner by charging the rate of Rs.  3600/- per sq. mtrs. Therefore, we do not find any ground on  which we can hold that this doctrine is at all applicable to the facts  of this case. 11.     For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to sustain the order  of the MRTP Commission, which was clearly in error in granting  relief to the respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

MRTP Commission is set aside and the petition filed before the  MRTP Commission by the respondent stands rejected. The appeal  is thus allowed. There will be no order as to costs.