H.S. Bedi JUDGMENT
Tarun Chatterjee, J.
1. This appeal at the instance of Ghaziabad Development Authority (in short "the GDA") is filed against the judgment and order dated 3rd of August, 2000 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi (in short `the MRTP Commission') in R.T.P.E. No. 82 of 1998 by which the MRTP Commission had directed the GDA to deliver possession of a plot of 90 sq. mtrs. to the complainant/respondent in Govindpuram Scheme or any adjacent scheme at a price prevalent in the year 1988.
2. The dispute in this appeal pertains to the allotment of certain land by the GDA in its Govindpuram Scheme. In the complaint filed before the MRTP Commission by the respondent, it was alleged that the GDA had first allotted certain land to him and after many years, cancelled the allotment arbitrarily. The respondent also claimed the refund of the invested amount. Challenging the cancellation of allotment as arbitrary and also for refund of the invested money, a proceeding was initiated at the instance of the respondent before the MRTP Commission alleging that the cancellation of the allotment by the GDA was not only arbitrary but also indicative of its monopolistic hold on the land and therefore, it amounted to an unfair trade practice under the MRTP Act. The GDA entered appearance and denied the allegations made in the complaint, inter alia, alleging that no specific allotment order was made by the GDA and, therefore, cancellation of the same did not arise at all. It was further stated by the GDA in their written objection to the complaint that the long delay was attributable to the fact that the scheme was tied up in litigation for many years and when that litigation was over, the draw prescribed for allotment of land was held. Since the respondent had failed in this draw, the allotment of the land could not be made and therefore, the refund was offered. After hearing the parties and on the basis of the available records, the MRTP Commission held that the land was indeed allotted to the respondent and the cancellation of the respondent's allotment when other allottees had been given the plots in the same circumstances amounted to an "unfair trade practice" under Section 36 of the MRTP Act. The MRTP Commission also held that the respondent had suffered pecuniary losses and damages. Based on these findings, the MRTP Commission directed the GDA to allot 90 sq. mtrs. of plot to the respondent in Govindpuram Scheme and in case the plot was not available, to hand over the possession of vacant plot of the same size to the respondent in other schemes nearby the Govindpuram Scheme at the previously decided price. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the GDA has come up in appeal in this Court.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the order of the MRTP Commission as well as the other available records, two questions crop up before us for decision of this appeal:
(i) Whether any unfair trade practice was resorted to by the GDA;
(ii) Whether the MRTP Commission had the jurisdiction to direct the GDA to allot an alternative plot of land to the respondent at the previously fixed price under the MRTP Act.
4. Before we go into these questions, we may, at this stage, narrate certain other facts also, which would be required for decision in this appeal. In October 1988, the ........