Manjul Srivastava vs Govt. Of U.P. & Ors

1. These two appeals at the instance of Mrs. Manjul Srivastava (appellant herein) have been filed against the orders dated 9th of May, 2001 and 7th of December, 2001 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi (in short "the Commission") in C.A. No. 154 of 1998 and R.A. No. 37 of 2001, which also arose out of C.A. 1 No. 154 of 1998, whereby the Commission had held that the Ghaziabad Development Authority (in short "the GDA") had not resorted to any "unfair trade practice" inasmuch as the appellant was unsuccessful in the draw for allotment of a plot in Govindpuram area of District Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, she could not be termed as an "allottee" of the residential plot in that area.

2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals, as emerged from the complaint filed by the appellant before the Commission, may be narrated in a nutshell as under:-

3. After the lapse of almost nine years, more particularly on 1st of October, 1997, the appellant received a Registered Letter from the GDA informing her that she had not been allotted a plot in the Scheme and that the amount deposited by her with the GDA would be refunded with 5% interest. However, no reason for not giving possession of the plot, already reserved in the name of the appellant, was given.

4. Feeling aggrieved by this action on the part of the GDA of not allotting a plot in her name, although the entire amount was deposited by the appellant, the appellant filed an application before the Commission, which came to be registered as C.A. No. 154 of 1998 alleging that the cancellation of the allotment by the GDA was not only arbitrary but also unfair and illegal, therefore, it amounted to "unfair trade practice" under the Act. Accordingly, the appellant sought for a direction to the respondent to allot another plot to her or in the alternative, to pay with interest at the rate of 20% on the entire amount for the entire period and also for a direction to pay compensation to her. On 23rd of February, 2000, the GDA filed its reply to the above application contending inter alia that since the appellant was unsuccessful in the draw of lots, no allotment could be made in her name. It was further stated in defence that since no plot in the Govindpuram Housing Scheme was available, allotment of plot was also not possible and that the GDA had given a public notice to the appellant to 4 collect the entire amount deposited with interest at the rate of 5% in a local widely circulated newspaper "Hindustan Times". Accordingly, GDA prayed for dismissal of the application of the appellant. On 30th of March, 1998, a supplementary application was filed by the appellant by which the appellant had brought to the notice of the Commission that after the reservation of the plot, a draw was to be held only for allotting the specific plot, namely corner plot, road facing, park facing etc. and that no draw was to be held for allotment for those persons for whom a plot had already been reserved.

6. The Commission, by its Order dated 9th of May, 2001, rejected the application filed by the 5 appellant primarily on the ground that the appellant not being an "allottee" from the result of the draw held, she was not entitled to any plot, as claimed, and, therefore, the charge of "unfair trade practice"

9.50 The refund of registration amount to unsuccessful applicant shall be started after one month of the draw.

14. Before the Commission, the GDA, on affidavit, asserted that no plot was available for allotment to the appellant in the Govindpuram Housing Scheme and, therefore, it would be practically impossible to allot any plot, which is not available with GDA for allotment, even if it is held that allotment of plot was made by GDA in favour of the appellant. A decision of this Court in the case of Alok Shanker Pandey vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2007) 3 SCC 545] may be referred as it was also cited at the Bar. In that decision it has been clearly held that the amount of interest to be awarded for refund of any amount deposited by the candidate would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Such being the state of affairs, we 15 are of the view that the appellant should be allowed to get refund from the GDA the entire sum with interest at the rate of18% not at the rate of 5% as we find that from the brochure itself, it would be clear that in the event, the appellant could not deposit the entire amount after the allotment is made within certain time, 18% interest shall be levied on the appellant. It is an admitted position that the appellant deposited the entire amount as directed by the GDA in the year 1989 and the order of cancellation of reservation of a plot in favour of the appellant was made after more than seven years and, therefore, we must hold that the respondent was liable to pay interest not at the rate of 5% but at the rate of 18%. In the facts of the present case, since the GDA had utilized the entire amount of the appellant for their own purpose till they had refunded the amount to the appellant, we confirm the order of the Commission holding that there was no "unfair trade practice", but in the facts and 16 circumstances of the present case, we allow these appeals in part and direct the respondent to refund the money already deposited with the GDA with interest at the rate of 18 per cent and not at the rate of 5%.

16. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are allowed only to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.