PAWAN KUMAR RUSTOGI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint has been filed by the applicant/complainant under Sections 10 (a) (i), 2 (o), 36a, 36b (a), 37 and 36d of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in unfair and restrictive trade practices. It has been alleged by the applicant/ complainant that he applied for a flat under the 6th Self Financing Scheme and got himself registered, by depositing Rs.15,000/- in 1985, with the respondent, the Delhi Development Authority which has been, from time to time, floating Self Financing Schemes for construction of two bedroom and three bedroom flats, with the finances provided by the applicants. It has been further stated that the flats were to be provided within a period of two years. The grievance of the applicant/complainant is that while advertising the 6th Self Financing Scheme and inviting applications the respondent did not notify the fact that thousands of registrants under the previous schemes were waiting for allotment of flats and that they would be given pre-emptive rights under the present scheme. It has also been mentioned by him that since he was desirous of acquiring a flat in Delhi, he applied four times out of five for a flat and gave Vasant Kunj or a place in South Delhi as his first choice except in 1993 when the flats were not offered in Vasant Kunj. His grievance is that he was allotted a flat in Pocket G, Kondli Gharoli even though he had given Vasant Kunj and Kishan Garh, a place close to Vasant Kunj as his two choices and since he was not lucky to get a flat in the areas of his choice, he had to surrender the allotment at Kondli Gharoli. It has been further complained by him that he did not book a flat or plot in DLF and Palam Vihar which were promoted by the private builders merely because there is a condition precedent for allotment stipulated by the respondent that the applicant should not have any residential house or plot in Delhi. It has been further complained by him that in July- August, 1996, when the respondent announced its 9th Self Financing Scheme, he applied again and deposited Rs.50,000/- as registration amount, but unlike in the previous schemes pre- emptive rights or priority has not been given to the registrants under this Scheme for allotment of flats in Vasant Kunj. The complainant has also filed a compensation application under Sec.12b of the Act.

(2.) A Notice of Enquiry was issued to the respondent. In reply, while denying the allegations of unfair and restrictive trade practices, it has been stated on behalf of the respondent that the applicant/complainant was considered for allotment of a flat under the 6th Self Financing Scheme and his name was included in the draw of lots but he was not successful in the draw for allotment in the two locations of his choice but a flat was offered to him at Kondli Gharoli. It has been further stated that since he failed to deposit the balance amount, his registration was cancelled as per the rules and the registration amount deposited by him after certain deductions was refunded to him. It has also been mentioned that the 6th Self Financing Scheme has since been closed.

(3.) The case of the respondent is that it works on 'no profit, no loss basis' and on the principle of 'first come first served' and accordingly, the registrants under earlier schemes were given allotments prior to those under the 6th Self Financing Scheme. It has been further clarified that the registrants of the 6th Self Financing Scheme were given allotments prior to those of 6th A, 6th B, 7th, 8th, 9th Schemes. It has also been highlighted that allotment is made on the basis of draw of lots and the complainant was not successful in the draws held 4 times from 1987 to 1992. However, he was successful in the draw held on 9th March, 1995 and offer of a three bedroom flat on ground floor Category-III in pocket G in Kondli Gharoli was made to him. It has also been explained that the applicant/ complainant gave only two choices but in the draw of lots for allotment in Vasant Kunj he was not successful and, therefore, he could not be allotted a flat in Vasant Kunj. It has been further clarified that the 6th Self Financing Scheme was closed in January, 1995 and no priority for allotment can be given to the registrants of the 6th Self Financing Scheme under the 9th Self Financing Scheme as the two schemes are different.