THE SOUTH CITY RESIDENTS' WELFARE ASSO.(R) vs UNITECH LTD., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

IN this case, the respondents have challenged maintainability of the present proceeding on the grounds stated in their respective replies. Therefore, the issues framed in this case, inter alia, include a preliminary legal issue as to the maintainability of the present proceeding which has to be decided at the threshold stage. The issue runs as follows : "Whether the Notice of Enquiry is not maintainable in the light of the objections taken by the respondents in their reply ?"

For proper appreciation of rival contentions it may be worthwhile to briefly state the important facts of the case. This complaint has been filed by 11 complainants under Section 36B(a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act in brief) for restoration of and non-interference with the green areas in the South City Colony of Gurgaon. The complainant No. 1 is an Association of residents of South City Colony. It claims to be registered under the Societies Act, 1860. IN the aforesaid complaint, it has been further stated that the Association is the complainant for all the residents collectively. The respondent No. 1 is a builder, promoter and coloniser of the South City Colony and is also a licensee of respondent No. 2, i.e. the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. Though the original complaint was filed against two respondents, the complaint was subsequently, amended to implead 11 more respondents.

A Notice of Enquiry was issued to the respondents on 21.1.1999 under Sections 36A, 36B(a) and 36D of the MRTP Act read with Regulation 51 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1991. The main allegation is that the respondents are tampering with the green areas provided in the original layouts for creating public facilities like parks, gardens, schools, community centres, health centres etc. It has also been further alleged that the width of the road is alongbeing reduced to half of its original width, to accommodate the Group Housing Complex known as City Heights and Rakshak Blocks. The maintainability of the present complaint has been challenged mainly on the ground that the Complainant No. 1 is not a "Registered Consumers'' Association". Learned Advocates for the respondents spoke with one voice that the complaint filed under Section 36B(a) of the MRTP Act is not maintainable inasmuch as the Complainant No. 1 is not a "Registered Consumers'' Association" as defined in Section 2(n) of the MRTP Act. This being so, the Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, they contended. They further submitted that, in view of this, any order passed by the Commission in respect of this complaint, will be a nullity.

Learned Advocate for the complainants, on the other hand, contended that the Complainant No. 1 is a "consumer" as defined under Section 2(d)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the C.P. Act in brief). He further stated that the "Registered Consumers'' Association" can file a complaint for the cause of others without having any cause of action of their own. In the instant case, the Complainant No. 1 is a consumer fighting for its own cause. He further submitted that the locus standi of the Complainant No. 1 is supported by the ruling of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Medical Trust v. S. Muddappa & Ors., reported in AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1902.

WE have carefully considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties to the dispute and have also gone through the case law cited in support of their contentions. The crux of the whole issue is whether the Complainant No. 1 is a "Registered Consumers'' Association" as contemplated in Section 36B(a) of the MRTP Act. The expression "Registered Consumers'' Association" has been defined under Section 2(n) of the MRTP Act which reads as under : "Section 2(n). "registered consumers'' association" means a voluntary association of person registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other law for the time being in force which is formed for the purpose of protecting the interests of consumers generally and is recognised by the Central Government as such association on an application made in this behalf in such form and such manner as may be prescribed."

This definition read with Rule 3 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Recognition of Consumers'' Association) Rules, 1987 brings out the following essential elements of the "Registered Consumers'' Association" : (i) It should be voluntary association of persons; (ii) Such association should be registered under : (a) The Companies Act, 1956; or (b) Any other law for the time being in force. (iii) Such association should be formed for the purpose of protecting the interests of consumers generally; (iv) The association should be recognised by the Central Government as such association in the prescribed manner.

The question before us is whether the Complainant No. 1 meets the essential requirements of a "Registered Consumers'' Association" set out above. While the Complainant No. 1 may be, a voluntary Association, it obviously fails to meet the other requirements of a "Registered Consumers'' Association" as given in Section 2(n) of the MRTP Act. WE also find it difficult to accept the submissions urged by the learned Advocate for the complainants that the Complainant No. 1 is a "consumer" within the meaning in Section 2(d)(m) of the C.P. Act. These provisions under the C.P. Act do not come to the aid of the Complainant No. 1 because a "Registered Consumers'' Association" has been defined with minute particularity in Section 2(n) of the MRTP Act. It is a settled principle of law that if any thing is expressly provided in the MRTP Act, no reference need be made to other Acts. The expression "Registered Consumers'' Association" has been defined in Section 2(n) of the MRTP Act with such clarity end unambiguity that it is not susceptible to any other interpretation. WE are, therefore, of the view that we need not make any reference to any other Act for the definition of "Registered Consumers'' Association". The ruling cited by the complainants in Bangalore Medical Trust v. S. Muddappa & Ors. (supra), may have some relevance while the allegations are considered on merits. But it lands no support to the complainants on the issue of the maintainability which alone has to be decided at this stage of the case. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the position of law discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, we irresistibly come to the conclusion that the complaint is not maintainable under Section 36B(a) of the MRTP Act inasmuch as the Complainant No. 1 is not a ''Registered Consumers'' Association'' as defined in Section 2(n) of the said Act. The N.O.E. issued in this case stands discharged. However, this is without any prejudice to the claims and contentions of the complainants in respect of the alleged unfair trade practices on merits. This is also without any prejudice to the other options available to the complainants under the law. NOE discharged.