Rajasthan Housing Board v. The Director General (Investigation & Registration), MRTP Commission, New Delhi , (SC)
BS195572
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before:- N. Santosh Hegde and S.B. Sinha, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 5694 of 1999. D/d.
26.4.2005.
Rajasthan Housing Board - Appellant
Versus
The Director General (Investigation & Registration), MRTP Commission, New Delhi - Respondent
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, Section 13 - General observations made by commission in its order regarding commission of restrictive and unfair trade practices by appellant Housing Board - Respondent/complainant did not come forward to claim any relief based on said observations - Thus said observations to remain in the nature of instructions to be followed by appellant Board in future - Since there was no specific order in favour of any allottee or individual, appeal dismissed.
[Paras 2 and 3]
Case Referred :-
Rajasthan Housing Board v. Parvati Devi, (2000 (6) SCC 104).
JUDGMENT
N. Santosh Hegde, J. - This appeal is only an exercise in futility.
2. The M.R.T.P. Commission, New Delhi, while entertaining a complaint against the appellant gave the following directions:-
"8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondent has adopted and indulged in restrictive and unfair trade practices qua the informant/complainant and these practices are prejudicial to his interest and to the public interest and particularly the interest of all others who booked flats like him in 1981 and whose payment plans have been changed unilaterally resulting in imposition of unjustified cost on them."
3. The respondent-complainant not having come forward to claim any relief based on the above observations. These observations remain in the nature of instructions to be followed by the appellant - Board in future. The law in this regard is now settled by a judgment of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board v. Parvati Devi (2000 (6) SCC 104). Since, there is no specific order in favour of any allottee or individual, we do not think it is necessary for us to entertain this appeal.
4. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
.