SUSHIL BHATNAGAR vs GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GDA) THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN

THE applicant/complainant has approached this Commission under Section 36B(a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief) charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 36A there of. THE applicant/complainant has also moved an application under Section 12A thereof for an interim relief in the nature of the relief of injunction directing the respondent to reserve one HIG house in the area of Pratap Vihar to be considered for allotment to the applicant/complainant as per the terms specified in Scheme No. 682 (June, 1997) of the respondent. It would be quite proper to look at certain facts giving rise to this application. THE respondent has floated one scheme of houses bearing Scheme No. 682 for persons belonging to the Higher Income Group category (HIG category for convenience). THE applicant/complainant moved an application for allotment of one house therein. A draw was held for allotment of houses among the applicants. THE applicant/ complainant did not succeed in that draw. According to the applicant/complainant, the draw for allotment of houses was not properly conducted and no intimation for that draw was given to the applicant/complainant. In that view of the matter, he has approached this Commission by means of his complaint under Section 36B(a) of the MRTP Act charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 36A thereof. THE applicant/complainant has also moved an application for interim relief under Section 12A thereof as aforesaid.

THE respondent has filed its reply both to the complaint and the interim relief application and has resisted both on several grounds. It has inter alia contended that, according to the terms of the scheme, no individual intimation for holding the draw was to be given to the applicants and the draw of allotment of houses was to be announced by means of a newspaper advertisement. THE respondent has categorically denied any kind of unfair trade practices involved in conducting the draw for the purpose. It prima facie transpires from the material on record that no individual intimation was to be given With respect to holding of the draw for allotment of houses to the applicants belonging to the HIG category. The respondent has categorically averred in its reply that the newspaper advertisement was issued for announcing the draw to be conducted on the relevant date and at the scheduled time. No rejoinder affidavit has come to be filed by or on behalf of the applicant/complainant contro- verting this position. Besides, it is not the case of the applicant/complainant that no newspaper advertisement was issued for announcing the draw to be conducted on the relevant date and at the scheduled time. The respondent has also categorically stated that houses available for the applicants belonging to the HIG category were all considered for the purpose of the draw and all houses meant for the applicants for the HIG category were allotted in the said draw. In view of this material on record, it is difficult to accept the submission urged before us by learned Advocate Mr. Pandey for the applicant/ complainant that the respondent is prima facie found to have adopted and indulged in unfair trade practices while conducting the draw in question. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the applicant/complainant has failed to establish his prima facie case for the purpose of the present interim relief application.

In view of our aforesaid conclusion about non-establishment of any prima facie case for the purpose of the interim relief application, no question arises for consideration of the balance of convenience.

IT must be noted at this stage that the respondent has fairly made an offer of allotment of a house in the HIG category in the Pratap Vihar Residential Scheme bearing Scheme No. 704 at the ruling market price. So far as this offer is concerned, learned Advocate Mr. Pandey for the applicant/complainant informs us that it will be put to the applicant/complainant and intimation will be given to the respondent through its Advocate whether or not such offer is acceptable. Such intimation to the respondent through its Advocate should be given within four weeks from today. In the result, this application for interim relief fails. IT is hereby rejected however with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Interim Relief Application dismissed.