Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
Shashi Singhal And Anr. vs Ghaziabad Development Authority And ... on 19 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: II(2003)CPJ29(MRTP)
ORDER
C.M. Nayar, J. (Chairman)
1. The complainants have filed this complaint under Sections 10-A and 36-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 wherein it is alleged that in March, 1996 the respondents under "Instant Allotment Scheme" floated a new housing scheme called "Govind Puram Housing Scheme" and invited applications from people wishing to purchase the house under the: said scheme. The houses were stated to be in ready built position for instant allotment/ physical possession. The complainants on 23.3.1996 approached the concerned authorities and their application was accepted subject to certain terms and conditions imposed by the respondents. The respondents estimated the final cost of the house at Rs. 5,75,000/- which is so stated in paragraph 6 of the complaint, which may be reproduced as below :
"6. The respondent has estimated the final cost of the house at Rs. 5,75,000/-. On the same day i.e. on 23.3.1996 registration was done on payment of Rs. 57,500/- being 10% of the final cost of the house and simultaneously an allotment letter-cum-payment schedule dated 23.3.1996 was also issued to the complainants at the instant allotment camp. The complainants were allotted House No. J-125, Govind Puram, Ghaziabad."
The allotment letter-cum-payment schedule dated 23.3.1996 was issued to the complainant which may be reproduced as below :
"GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, GHAZIABAD (U.P.)-201001 (Allotment letter-cum-payment schedule) Letter No. 58 1AC 1295.
Dated 23.3.1996 To, Mr./Ms. Shashi Singhal & S.K. Singhal C/o Dr. S.P. Gupta R/o 22/3 Miss Gill Compound Marris Road, Aligarh (U.P.)-202001.
Sub : Allotment & Payment Schedule of House.
Ref : Instant Allotment Camp Allotment Dated 23.3.1996.
Dear Sir/Madam, I have been directed to inform you that you have been allotted house in the Instant Allotment Scheme as per details given below :
8. Payment Schedule
(a) Already Paid Amount (Registration Amount) Rs. 5,75,000.00
(b) Balance of registration amount Rs. 0.00 is to be paid within a week from the date of issuing this letter.
(c) Balance payment (60%) is to be deposited in four quarterly instalments including 18% interest and schedule for balance payment are as follows :
(d) Remaining 30% of the estimated cost will be paid in 4 quarterly instalments, the schedule for the instalments will as follows :
9. Other Terms & Conditions :
(a) The amount deposited in this scheme is non-refund able.
(b) If the amount payable to Ghaziabad Development Authority is not paid within the prescribed time limit, penal interest at the rate of 21% per annum shall be payable along with payable amounts, If the payment is not made within three months after its due date along with penal interest if any, the allotment shall be treated cancelled without any notice.
(c) Possession can be taken after 70% payment of final cost of the house.
(d) If you want to pay the entire money in one instalment within a month, no interest will be charged and one percent rebate in cost will be given.
Dated 23.3.1996.
Yours sincerely Sd/- illegible (Incharge Instant)"
2. It is not in dispute that the complainants deposited the entire estimated amount as demanded by the respondents, who subsequently vide communication dated 12.2.1997 demanded a further sum of Rs. 63,600/- towards the balance of the final cost of the flat and Rs. 14,660/- as free-hold fee. The complainants paid the later fee but disputed the amount of Rs. 63,600/- which was demanded by the respondents towards the final cost of the flat. The possession was given to the complainants on 31.8.1998 and it may be relevant to mention that the complainants made an application on 27.3.1998 wherein they prayed for payment of balance of final cost by instalments and filed an affidavit dated 1.4.1998 accepting the final cost and the terms and conditions of the allotment. This document is marked as RW1/8.
3. The learned Counsel for the complainants have vehemently contended that the respondents were not entitled to charge any further amount as the estimated cost which was earlier fixed for the flat was in fact the final cost. The complainants paid the same promptly and were entitled to possession of the flat within a period of one month which was not given. He has also argued that the cost of the adjoining flat J-128 was Rs. 5,66,000/- and there is no justification for the respondents to charge any other amount higher than that.
4. The law is now well-settled that it will not be open for Courts to go into pricing of flats and when reasons are explained by the authority no interference is called for. In the present case the initial cost as intimated to the complainants was an estimated cost and the possession was given to the complainants on their accepting the revised cost and on filing of an affidavit in this regard. The Full Bench judgment of the High Court in the matter of Smt. Sheelawanti and Anr. v. D.D.A. and Anr., 57 (1995) DLT 801 (FB)=AIR 1995 Delhi 212, has held that Court cannot interfere in pricing/costing of flats including escalation of cost of land etc. which form part of the conditions mentioned in the Brochure.
Paragraphs 20 and 36 of this judgment referred to may be reproduced as below :
"20. From the above, it is clear that the scope of judicial review in the cases involving costing and fixation of prices is very much limited. Apart from the observations and the findings recorded in B.D.A.'s case (Page 126), extracted above, that a public body entering in the realm of contract acts merely in the executive capacity and thereafter the relations are no longer governed by constitutional provisions but by contract, which apply in this case as even otherwise, what has to be seen and examined by the Writ Court is whether the pricing of flats demanded by the D.D.A. for different categories of allottees is whimsical or arbitrary. The data placed on record by the D.D.A. prima facie does not warrant so. There are of course some contentious points, like formula and basis for working out the land rate, cost of development, construction and inclusion of certain expenses which could only be decided on evidence, which we do not propose to do in writ jurisdiction. Merely because the method of valuation suggested by the petitioners would be more fairer or logical, the method or the basis adopted by the D.D.A. cannot be struck down as arbitrary or whimsical."
"36. We may now advert to the questions referred to the Full Bench. In keeping with our observations and findings recorded above, we are of the opinion that, in view of Clauses (13) and (14) of the Brochure and the transaction being contractual, this Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of pricing/costing of flats, including escalation of cost of land, etc. The answer to the first question has to be in the negative."
5. The Supreme Court in the recent judgment reported as IV (2002) SLT 806=JT 2002 (6) SC 182, in the matter of Delhi Development Authority v. Ashok Kumar Behl and Ors., has reiterated the proposition as stated above and put an end to the controversy by upholding the Full Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in Sheelawanti and Ors. (supra).
6. In view of the settled position of the law, we have no ground to uphold the contention of the learned Counsel of the complainants. The complaint as a consequence is rejected. Notice of Enquiry is discharged. There will be no order as to costs.