R.P.S.VARMA vs VICE-CHAIRMAN, DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS order disposes of the review applications filed by the complainants under Section 13(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act) in the above two cases seeking a review of the order passed by the Commission on 17.6.1998.

THE brief facts of the case leading to the passing of the order dated 17.6.1998 may be summarised as follows : THE Delhi Development Authority (DDA) the respondent in these cases, offered built-up flats under a scheme "Registration Scheme - New Pattern 1979". Both the complainants had applied for flats. THE scheme originally envisaged that the estimated cost of the flat would be Rs. 42,000/-. Both of them were informed in 1991 that they were allotted a flat each and in 1993 they were asked to deposit the enhanced amounts. THE complainant alleged that the action of the DDA in delaying the allotment of flat and asking for enhanced price for them amounted to both restrictive and unfair trade practices. THE Commission passed an order on 17.6.1998 discharging the Notice of Enquiry (NOE) issued against the respondent. While passing this order the Commission relied on the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 3rd February, 1995 in CWP No. 1121/1991. The complainants in their review applications have made the following points : (1) The Commission is not bound to follow the judgment of High Courts in the matter covered by the MRTP Act, 1969. (2) The judgment of the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi on which the Commission relied had given contradictory findings. According to them, since the High Court had held that it could not interfere in the matter of pricing/costing of flats including escalation in cost of land under Article 226 of the Constitution, their finding that the revision of cost of land by DDA was neither illegal nor arbitrary "is not correct". They have further averred that this finding at best might be termed obiter dictum and not a decision of the matter to have binding force. (3) The SLP filed against the judgment of the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in limine and therefore the finding of the High Court has not been affirmed by the Supreme Court. (4) As per the judgment dated 23.9.1994 in DDA v. Pushpender Kumar Jain, 1994 (6) SCC 292, the DDA should have charged the complainant the prevalent price in 1991 as the allotment of the flat to the complainant was intimated to them in July and August, 1991 respectively.

The respondent did not avail of the opportunity given to it to file a reply to the review applications nor was the respondent represented when we gave a hearing to the complainants.

WE have given careful consideration to the points made by the complainants in their review applications. A Full Bench of the Commission in its order dated 15.5.1998 in the matter of Director General (I & R) v. Holy Angel School, reported as 1998 CTJ (MRTPC), has pronounced that a ruling of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is binding to this Commission. In the light of this we are bound by the finding of the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi contained in its judgment in CWP 1121/1991 delivered on 3rd February, 1995. The contention of the complainants that the SLP filed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in limine is of no relevance as the ruling of the High Court even if not confirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court is binding to the Commission. The complainants further argued that the judgment of the High Court of Delhi was under Article 226 of the Constitution and it had come to the conclusion that it could not interfere in the matter of pricing/costing of the flats under that article. In view of this, according to them, the Commission could look into the pricing of flats under its own powers. We do not agree with this contention. The Hon''ble High Court of Delhi while delivering the judgment on 3rd February, 1995 in the above case had come to the finding that the revision of the cost of land by DDA was neither illegal nor arbitrary. According to the complainants, the High Court of Delhi had given contradictory findings. As far as the Commission is concerned, the ruling of the High Court in this matter is final and we cannot sit in judgment over the pronouncement of the High Court. The arguments of the complainants are therefore devoid of any merit.

THE complainants, relying on the judgment dated 23.9.1994 of the Supreme Court in the matter of DDA v. Pushpender Kumar Jain (supra), argued that the respondent should have charged them die price prevalent in 1991. THE applicants in the UTPE 73/95 and UTPE 74/95 were actually allotted flats through letters dated 3.5.1993 and 7.4.1993 respectively and they were charged the price of the flat as on that date. The complainants in their applications have stated that the Commission had granted interim stay and the final order dated 17.6.1998 did not give any directions to the respondent. In its order dated 18.8.1993 in the case of UTPE 74/ 95 and the order dated 2.9.1993 in the case of UTPE 73/95 the Commission had only directed that the cancellation of the allotments, if any, shall be subject to the orders of the Commission. In view of this it is not necessary to give any specific direction to the respondent while passing the final orders dated 17.6.1998. In view of what is stated above, there is no merit in any of the arguments advanced by the complainants seeking review of our order dated 17.6.1998. The review applications fail and are rejected. Review Applications dismissed.