SOUTH CITY RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSO Vs. UNITECH LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the respondents have challenged maintainability of the present proceeding on the grounds stated in their respective replies. Therefore, the issues framed in this case, inter alia, include a preliminary legal issue as to the maintainability of the present proceeding which has to be decided at the threshold stage. The issue runs as follows : "whether the Notice of Enquiry is not maintainable in the light of the objections taken by the respondents in their reply ?" For proper appreciation of rival contentions it may be worthwhile to briefly state the important facts of the case. This complaint has been filed by 11 complainants under Sec.36b (a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act in brief) for restoration of and non-interference with the green areas in the South City Colony of Gurgaon. The complainant No.1 is an Association of residents of South City Colony. It claims to be registered under the Societies Act, 1860. In the aforesaid complaint, it has been further stated that the Association is the complainant for all the residents collectively. The respondent No.1 is a builder, promoter and coloniser of the South City Colony and is also a licensee of respondent No.2, i. e. the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. Though the original complaint was filed against two respondents, the complaint was subsequently, amended to implead 11 more respondents.

(2.) A Notice of Enquiry was issued to the respondents on 21.1.1999 under Sections 36a, 36b (a) and 36d of the MRTP Act read with Regulation 51 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1991. The main allegation is that the respondents are tampering with the green areas provided in the original layouts for creating public facilities like parks, gardens, schools, community centres, health centres etc. It has also been further alleged that the width of the road is alongbeing reduced to half of its original width, to accommodate the Group Housing Complex known as City Heights and Rakshak Blocks.

(3.) The maintainability of the present complaint has been challenged mainly on the ground that the Complainant No.1 is not a "registered Consumers' Association". Learned Advocates for the respondents spoke with one voice that the complaint filed under Sec.36b (a) of the MRTP Act is not maintainable inasmuch as the Complainant No.1 is not a "registered Consumers' Association" as defined in Sec.2 (n) of the MRTP Act. This being so, the Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, they contended. They further submitted that, in view of this, any order passed by the Commission in respect of this complaint, will be a nullity.