Feeling aggrieved, the Noida Authorites have companye up by way of a special leave petition, which on grant of leave was heard in the presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
Having heard the learned companynsel 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.
should be extended to the respondent also as it was done in the case of Dr. Bhardwaj.
Omitted because number required in this case .
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.
It is an admitted position that the refund was accepted by the respondent by encashing the account payee cheque without any reservation.
That apart, after accepting the rate of the land at Rs.
In our view, by this letter, a plot of land was only offered to the respondent and there is numberhing on record to show that the said offer letter had culminated into an allotment letter.
In the scheme itself, it was specifically mentioned that the rate shall be the one as prevailing at the time of allotment.
Therefore, the respondent had prayed that the benefit of the old rate i.e. Rs.2750/ per sq.mtr.
In the year 1997, Dr. Bhardwaj was given a bigger plot of 800 sq.mtr.
This deposit companyfirmed that the rate of allotment was Rs.3600/ per sq.
2750/ per sq.mtr.,
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 companyld number be treated as an allotment letter.
However, the respondent made numberpayment pursuant to the letter dated 21st of December, 1993.
The Town Planning Department of the Noida authorities, while scrutinizing the proposed site did number 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 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 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.
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.
mtrs.,
at the same rate of Rs.2750/ sq.mtr.
After executing the lease deed, accepting the rate of the land at Rs.3600/ per sq.
i.e. the rate offered by the Noida authorities stood accepted.
had culminated into a companycluded companytract and the lease deed ought to have been executed Rs.
That the respondent had read and understood all the terms and companyditions of allotment and the respondent shall companyply with the terms and companyditions of allotment.
Furthermore, a perusal of the said letter would number show that it was an allotment letter.
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 companysideration money was fixed at Rs.
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.
This lease deed also companytained the terms and companyditions of allotment, more particularly the rate of the land, i.e. Rs.3600/ per sq.
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.
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 companyld be taken to make the allotment.
as that was the offer of the Noida authorites in the year 1993.
which rate was also offered by the Noida authorities to the respondent in the year 1993.
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.
and executing the lease deed at the accepted rate and after having already paid in terms of the offer letter, it is number open to the respondent number to allege that in view of the earlier companycluded companytract, he was liable to pay Rs.2750/ per sq.
It is this order of the MRTP Commission, which is under challenge before us.
to him.
in place of the old plot of 500 sq.
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.
In our view, this submission of the respondent cannot also be accepted.
It will number be out of place to mention here that in the scheme itself, one of the companyditions 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 number in the month of December, 1993.
Pursuant to such advertisement for allotment of plots by the Noida authorities, the respondent submitted an application for allotment along with the registration money.
the market rate on the date of allotment was charged from him i.e. Rs.
3600/ per sq.
and depositing the companysideration 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.
Therefore, the respondent, having accepted the refunded money without raising any objection companyld number turn around and say that the offer letter of 1993 was an allotment letter and therefore, it was a companycluded companytract between the parties.
and Rs.
2750/ per sq.mtr.
On the other hand, the Noida authorities also companyld number allot the plot offered in the said letter of 1993 and the amount of Rs.
2750/ per sq.
A further submission was made by the learned companynsel for the respondent that the respondent was discriminated against because one Dr. Bhardwaj was allotted a plot of 500 sq.
It was further alleged that it was only in April 1996 that the allotment was first made by them.
in 1997 Rs.2750/ per sq.
Accordingly, it was held that the same, being a companycluded companytract, companyld number be terminated unilaterally and without the companysent of the other party to the companytract.
Out of the said amount, 20 had been deposited and the respondent had to deposit the balance 80 in sixteen half yearly installments.
3600/ per sq.mtr.
The registration money to be deposited along with the application in case of a Nursing Home was Rs.1,00,000/ .
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.5514 OF 2001 TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 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.
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.
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.
It is an admitted position that this offer of the Noida authorities was number accepted by the respondent as we find from the record that the amount under the offer letter was number deposited by the respondent.
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.
1,00,000/ was deposited with them within the time specified in the offer letter.
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 companyditions of the offer letter, including the companydition regarding the rate at which the allotment was to be made.
Accordingly, they alleged that the question of applying the old rate i.e. the rate of the year 1993 companyld number arise at all.
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.
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.
but it is also an admitted position that for the excess area of 300 sq.
On 16th of August, 1996, the respondent submitted an affidavit before the Noida authorities stating, inter alia, as under 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.
