Transfer Of Property Has to Take Effect Within the Confines of The Governing Law: Competition Commission of India

 Informant COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Case No. 321 In Re: Mr. Manmohan Singh R o House No 1118 Sector 29 B Chandigarh 160030 Chairman Chandigarh Housing Board through Advisor U.T. CHD Opposite Party No. 1 Chairman Chandigarh Housing Board Chandigarh Housing Board 8 Janmarg Sector 9D Chandigarh 160009 Opposite Party No. 2 Secretary exercising the powers of real estate CHB Chandigarh Opposite Party No. 3 Secretary CHB through Finance Secretary UT Secretariat Sector 9 Chandigarh Opposite Party No. 4 The Chief Account Officer Chief Executive Officer CHB Chandigarh The Account Officer II CHB Chandigarh Opposite Party No. 5 Opposite Party No. 6 Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Ms. Sangeeta Verma Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi Case No. 321 Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act 2002 1. The present Information is filed by Mr. Manmohan Singhunder Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act 2002 alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act 2002by Chairman Chandigarh Housing Board through Advisor UT CHD Chairman CHBSecretary CHB ChandigarhSecretary CHB through Finance Secretary UT Secretariat the Chief Account Officer Chief Executive Officer CHB Chandigarhthe Account Officer II CHB Chandigarh hereinafter collectively referred to as the Opposite Partiesfor the transfer of the said dwelling unit in his name vide application dated 25.08.2009 to CHB as the other legal heirs Mrs. Mandip Kaurand Mr. Amarjit Singhhad relinquished their respective rights in his 3. The Informant avers that even after submitting the requisite documents in 2009 the said dwelling unit was not transferred in his name and at a much later stage the CHB apprised the Informant that as per its latest policythat in cases of transfer of property in relation to intestate deaths the property shall only be transferred in the name of all legal heirs and accordingly requested the Informant to resubmit the requisite documents once favour. 4. The Informant states that he made many requests to various authorities such as Chairman CHB and Advisor UT Chandigarh etc. contending that the latest policy is not applicable in his case as he had made an application for mutation in the year 2009. However CHB arbitrarily rejected his application vide its order dated 30.07.2019 and that in the absence of Case No. 321 the transfer of dwelling unit in his name he has suffered irreparable loss as he is unable to sell the said dwelling unit. 5. Thus the Informant alleges that CHB has indulged in unfair and restrictive trade practices and abuse of dominant position thus violating the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act 2002. 6. The Informant has inter alia prayed to the Commission for immediate restoration of his application dated 25.08.2009 and transfer of dwelling unit in his name which is pending before CHB and grant of compensation damages of upto ₹75 lakh as relief. Restoration of his application dated 25.08.2009 has also been sought as interim relief u s 33 of the Act. 7. At the outset the Commission notes that the Informant has stated that after the demise of his father he applied for a transfer of the dwelling unitin his own name vide application dated 25.08.2009as the other legal heirs had relinquished their rights in favour of the Informant. However CHB allegedly rejected his application. 8. The Commission notes that various correspondences have been enclosed with the Information. Upon conjoint reading of the enclosures the Commission notes that the old citizens’ charter of CHB required the submission of an affidavit of remaining legal heirs relinquishing their respective right title interest and that the Informant was asked to file fresh affidavits by CHB owing to some inconsistency in the signature of one of the legal heirs viz. Mrs. Mandip Kaur in the previously filed joint affidavit. 9. The Commission notes that the Informant apparently approached CHB only in 2018 after a gap of six years whereas CHB had asked the Informant to file a fresh affidavit of relinquishment way back in 2012 owing to inconsistency in the signature as aforementioned. In 2018 the new citizens’ charter was issued subsequent to which CHB sought submission of registered relinquishment deed from the Informant in terms of the latest requirements. 10. Having considered the averments and allegations made in the Information the Commission prima facie observes that the Informant has not been able to make out any case of contravention of the provisions of section 3 of the Act. Further in relation to alleged Case No. 321 contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act the Commission prima facie observes that no competition concern is noticed and therefore the delineation of relevant market and subsequent assessment of dominance and abuse are dispensable in the instant case. Suffice to say in the facts and circumstances of the present matter that transfer of property has to take effect within the confines of the governing law for which the CHB may prescribe certain guidelines policies from time to time in consonance with the legal requirements as it may deem appropriate. No abuse per se can be found in such circumstances. In any case the alleged conduct of CHB has not resulted in foreclosure of the legal rights of the Informant to perfect his legal title and he is free to act in accordance with the legal requirements in this regard. The Commission while holding the above has expressed nothing on the merits of the legal rights of the Informant and remedies available to the Informant except a finding that no competition concern has been observed. 11. In view of the foregoing the Commission is of the considered opinion that no prima facie case of contravention of any of the provisions of Section 3 and or 4 of the Act is made out against CHB and other Opposite Parties for causing an investigation into the matter and therefore the matter be closed under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act 2002. Consequently no case for grant for relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises and the same is also rejected. 12. The Secretary is directed to forward a certified copy of this order to the Informant Sd Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Sd Ms. Sangeeta Verma Sd Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi New Delhi Dated: 10.11.2021 Case No. 321 

Summary: The Commission upheld the autonomy of the Chandigarh Housing Board in prescribing guidelines and policies from time to time as it may deemfit, in relation to transfer of property. This authority cannot be considered as ‘unfair’, ‘restrictive trade practices’ and ‘abuse of dominant position’ or in violation of Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act. An order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 was passed in the matter of In Re: Manmohan Singh and Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board and Others, Case No. 31 of 2021 by Chairperson, Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, and Members, Ms. Sangeeta Verma and Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi.   The Informant (Mr. Manmohan) had filed Information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act on the ground that the opposite party has contravened Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act. The dispute revolves around a dwelling unit that was allotted to the Informant’s father. After his demise, the Informant had sent an application with all relevant documents, for transferring the dwelling unit in his name to the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) on 3rd August 2009. He claims that even after providing the necessary documents, the unit was not transferred to him, and that it was in 2018 that the CHB informed him about their latest policy, in lieu of which he was asked to resend the documents. He contended that the said policy was inapplicable in his case, as he had applied for the transfer in 2009, the same was rejected by the CHB. He also claimed compensation of Rs. 75 Lakhs for the loss he suffered as he was unable to sell the unit and restoration of his application under Section 33 of the Act. On further investigation the Commission noted that, there was some irregularity in the signature of one of the legal heirs on the joint affidavit, and so the Informant was asked to submit a fresh one. The Informant approached CHB in 2018 when the CHB asked him to file a fresh affidavit in 2012 itself. Since, he approached the board in 2018 he had to comply with its latest policy. Therefore, the Commission noted that, “the Informant has not been able to make out any case of contravention of the provisions of section 3 of the Act. Further, in relation to alleged contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act, the Commission prima facie observes that no competition concern is noticed and therefore, the delineation of relevant market and subsequent assessment of dominance and abuse are dispensable in the instant case……In the facts and circumstances of the present matter transfer of property has to take effect within the confines of the governing law for which the CHB may prescribe certain guidelines/policies from time to time, in consonance with the legal requirements, as it may deem appropriate. No abuse, per se, can be found in such circumstances”; and that, “the matter be closed under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. Consequently, no case for grant for relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises, and the same is also rejected.”   Click Here to Read the Order  Judgement Reviewed by Vagisha Sagar