Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
S.K. Kapoor And Ors. vs The Secretary, Mussoorie Dehradun ... on 5 March, 2002
ORDER
1. Ms. Moksh Mahajan, Member--Order in C.A. No. 35/1999 in the case of applicants, S.K. Kapoor and Ors. v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority and Anr., was pronounced on 27th April, 2001 dismissing the Compensation Application with observation that the respondent was at liberty to refund the amount as agreed to be done by its own letter dated 6.8.1998 within two weeks from the receipt of the order.
2. The applicants have moved an application under Section 13(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for amendment/ revocation of the order passed by the Commission under Section 12B of the Act. The thrust of the petition is mainly on certain errors/omissions having crept in the order. These include findings on furnishing of brochure, escalation of prices and interpretation of letters by the applicants addressed to the respondent authority.
3. While we find no apparent/patent error in the order, which needs to be rectified or modified, the close reading of the same clearly shows that the objections raised have been clearly dealt with in the aforesaid order.
4. While discussing the respondents' reply, it has been clearly mentioned on page 5 of the order that the amounts to be refunded at Rs. 15,000/- each for two flats and Rs. 18,750/- for shop, which were stated to be in accordance with the rules framed for refund of the amount, have not been rebutted by the applicants. Then the Commission cannot go into the question of escalation of prices in view of the various judicial pronouncements. As to the interpretation of the letters addressed to the respondent authority by the applicants for payment of amount within a stipulated period, the issue can be taken up only in an appeal as provided under Section 55 of the Act. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited v. Union of India, reported in (1979) 2 SCC 529, clearly states that while wide and unusual powers under Section 13(2) of the Act have been conferred on the Commission to amend or revoke an order at any time, the same cannot be construed to be so vide as to permit rehearing on the same material without anything more. What the applicants want is rehearing on the same facts, which is not permissible in view of the decision cited by it.
In view of the above, the Review Application No. 28/2001 is dismissed with no order as to the costs.