Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: common plot in Samajik Nayay And Ors. vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 14 August, 2002Matching Fragments
Moksh Mahajan, Member
1. In three separate complaints filed in UTPE 93/1997, UTPE 126/1997 and UTPE 127/1997, a common grievance has been expressed against the respondent i.e. Ghaziabad Development Authority. It is the contention of the complainants that charging interest on various instalments along with the very first instalment of payment from the complainants is unjustified specifically in absence of any development carried out on the plots stated to have been reserved for them.
2. Briefly listed, the facts which are common to all the complaints are that pursuant to the Indira Puram Priyadarshini Enclave Scheme launched by the respondent Authority, the complainants applied for allotment of plots to the respondent. The registration charges as demanded were deposited as under :
The complainants instead of making payments in respect or the instalments as demanded put the respondent on the legal notice. Serious objections were raised in respect of chargeable interest at Rs. 9,314/- with the very first and other instalments. As per the contents of the legal notice which are common to all the complainants, the land in question had not yet been developed and the estimated cost of the plot at Rs. 1,47,840/- was exorbitant - not within the means of a common man. It was prayed that either developed plots at Indira Puram Priyadarshini Enclave Plot Scheme should be handed over to them immediately or the registration amount alongwith interest @ 21% be refunded. In absence of any reply received from the respondent Authority, the complainants filed the complaints before the Commission. The plea of the complainants was that the activity of the respondent Authority clearly amounted to unfair/restrictive trade practices covered under Sections 10 and 36-A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (in short 'the Act'). It was prayed that the respondent should be directed not to cancel the plots as allotted or in the alternative refund their registration amount with interest at the market rates alongwith cost to the petitioners.