DIRECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION Vs. SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES/BACKWARD AND MINORITIES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a complaint filed before the Commission, the complainant alleged that the respondents sold a plot of 300 sq. yards to the complainant by making a false representation in regard to the title of the land and the approval of the U. P. Housing Development Authority for raising construction on the land. As per the facts detailed in the complaint, the respondent is a registered Society under U. P. Housing and Development Board, Lucknow (U. P. ). The complainant became a member of the respondent Society on 24.11.1994 by paying a sum of Rs.100/-. By way of extensive advertisement in the Hindustan Times dated 2.12.1994, the respondent offered plots of various sizes falling in Khasra Nos.513 and 516 in Village Hazipur, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad for sale to the public. The complainant was offered plot No.29 measuring 150 sq. yards in Khasra No.513 in Village Hazipur. In lieu thereof he paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards initial amount and Rs.20,000/- to cover 20% of the total cost through demand drafts. In addition, 24 post-dated cheques of Rs.5,000/- each were also issued to the respondent. Subsequently, on an option given to the complainant, he agreed to replace the said plot with another plot of 300 sq. yards in Khasra No.516 for a total consideration of Rs.3,03,000/-. A revised agreement dated 27.2.1995 was entered into between the complainant and the respondent and pursuant to that additional amount was paid through mode of cheques. Somewhere in November-December, 1995, the complainant came across a Public Notice published in the daily newspaper on 16.12.1994 by NOIDA Authority stating therein that the plots were not approved by the Appropriate Authority and the purchasers were not entitled to make any construction on the same. Public was warned not to deal with the respondent authority which was stated to have no legal right to sell the land in NOIDA. The complainant thereafter applied for cancellation of the plot and refund of the amount deposited with the respondent. The respondent instead of refunding the amount demanded the remaining amount towards the cost of plot. The allegation of the complainant is that it is not he alone who has been misled in buying the unapproved plot but there are others who have been similarly duped by the misrepresentation of the respondent. The prayer of the complainant is that not only inquiry be held against the unfair trade practices endulged in by the respondent but it should also be directed to cease and desist from carrying on such trade practices.

(2.) After hearing the complainant through its Advocate and coming to the view that the aforesaid matter involves public interest, the Director General (Investigation and Registration) [hereinafter referred to as the DG] was directed to prosecute the proceedings. A Notice of Enquiry under Sections 36a, 36b (a) and 36d of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Regulation 51 of the MRTPC Regulations, 1991 was issued to the respondents. In their joint reply filed on behalf of R1 and R3 it is stated that respondent is a registered Society under U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and operates and functions in the areas of limits of Ghaziabad Development Authority and city limits of NOIDA. The plots offered by the respondent were free from encumbrances as per certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, NOIDA (Annexure C ). Vide letter dated 27.3.1995, the respondent was informed by the Assistant Housing Commissioner, U. P. Housing and Development Board, 104, MGR, Lucknow, that the land in Khasra No.516, Village Hazipur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad was not proposed to be included in any planning of the Board. Proceeding on the said basis, the respondent advertised in the newspapers for sale of the plots. There was no cheating involved as alleged, rather the cheques paid by the complainant bounced.

(3.) During the course of the proceedings, both the DG and the complainant filed their respective interim relief applications under Sec.12-A of the Act. While the DG, in its application, sought to restrain the respondent forthwith from issuing any such further advertisement calling for enrolment of new members and demanding/accepting any further amount in connection with the construction of flats/houses, the complainant prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.1,64,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum. The complainant also sought to restrain the respondents from demanding any amount and taking any coercive action on the basis of their letters dated 16.6.1996 and 18.7.1996.