Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL     LEAVE     PETITION     (C)     Nos.     16116-16117     OF     2010   

  M/s A.B.N.A. and Ors.                                     … Petitioners

Versus

The Managing Director, M/s. U.P.S.I.D.C. Limited, Kanpur & Anr.                    … Respondents

O     R     D     E     R   

A.     K.     PATNAIK,     J.   

These are petitions under Article 136 of the  

Constitution for leave to appeal against the order dated  

04.03.2009 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade  

Practices Commission, New Delhi, (for short ‘the MRTP  

Commission’) in Review Application No.16 of 2007 and the

Page 2

order dated 05.01.2010 of the Competition Appellate  

Tribunal, New Delhi, in Review Application No.06 of 2009.

2. The facts very briefly are that the respondents  

published an advertisement in the Hindustan Times, New  

Delhi inviting applications from entrepreneurs for allotment  

of industrial land in Greater NOIDA on payment of 10% of  

the cost of allotted land.  In response to the advertisement,  

the petitioners applied for a plot and on 05.03.1994 a plot of  

800 square metres in Site-C was allotted.  The petitioners  

paid 10% of the cost of the plot on 23.03.1994. However,  

physical possession of the plot was not given to the  

petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had not paid  

all the dues for the plot.  The petitioners then filed a  

complaint UTPE No.119 of 2000 before the MRTP  

Commission and after notice to the respondents the  

complaint was heard from time to time.  While the  

complaint was pending, petitioners filed I.A. No.18 of 2004  

before the MRTP Commission to take possession of the  

allotted plot.  On 13.09.2007, the MRTP Commission passed  

an order directing that the respondent shall handover  

possession of the allotted plot within next two weeks to the  

2

Page 3

complainant and as regards the balance amount, if any due,  

the respondents shall submit a detailed chart giving the  

dates on which the subsequent installments were due and  

the amount payable on each due date.  By the order dated  

13.09.2007, the MRTP Commission also directed the  

petitioners to furnish a fresh SSI certificate to the  

respondents and directed that the matter be listed on  

01.11.2007 for further directions.  Instead of handing over  

possession of the allotted plot to the petitioners, the  

respondents filed Review Application No.16 of 2007 on  

18.12.2007 and by the impugned order dated 04.03.2009  

the MRTP Commission allowed the Review Application and  

recalled the order dated 13.09.2007 insofar as it directed  

the respondents to handover possession of the plot to the  

petitioners.  Aggrieved, the petitioners filed Review  

Application No.06 of 2009 before the Competition Appellate  

Tribunal and by the impugned order dated 05.01.2010, the  

Competition Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Review  

Application of the petitioners.

3

Page 4

3. The petitioner No.3, who appeared in-person and  

argued on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the order  

dated 13.09.2007 of the MRTP Commission directing the  

respondents to handover physical possession of the allotted  

plot to the petitioners was a consent order as it was passed  

on the consent of the two advocates appearing for the  

respondents, namely, Mr. Shakti Singh Dhakray and Mr.  

D.K. Sharma.  He submitted that the order dated  

13.09.2007 of the MRTP Commission being a consent order,  

the same could not have been reviewed by the MRTP  

Commission and on this ground the impugned order dated  

04.03.2009 of the MRTP Commission recalling the order  

dated 13.09.2007 in Review Application No.16 of 2007 is  

illegal and is liable to be set aside.  He further submitted  

that Review Application No.16 of 2007 was filed before the  

MRTP Commission by the respondents on 18.12.2007 more  

than thirty days period prescribed for filing of the Review  

Application.  He submitted that by the time Review  

Application No.16 of 2007 was filed, the petitioners had filed  

contempt petition for violation of the order dated  

18.12.2007 as well as a petition for executing the order  

4

Page 5

dated 18.12.2007 before the MRTP Commission.  He  

submitted that the MRTP Commission should not have  

entertained the Review Application after such long delay.  

He finally submitted that the stand taken by the  

respondents in Review Application No.16 of 2007 was that  

the MRTP Commission had no jurisdiction to direct the  

respondents to handover possession of the plot to the  

petitioners but there are decisions of this Court which make  

it clear that the MRTP Commission has the power to even  

direct handing over possession to the complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other  

hand, submitted that the order dated 13.09.2007 of the  

MRTP Commission was an interim order and the MRTP  

Commission has rightly held in the impugned order dated  

04.03.2009 that it could not have directed the respondents  

by an interim order to handover possession of the plot to the  

petitioners as this was the final relief claimed by the  

petitioners in the complaint before the MRTP Commission.  

Relying on the decision of this Court in Ghaziabad  

Development Authority v. Ved Prakash Aggarwal [(2008) 7  

5

Page 6

SCC 686], he submitted that the MRTP Commission has no  

power to direct handing over possession of the plot to the  

complainant and it is only the Civil Court which could while  

granting a decree of specific enforcement of the contract  

direct the defendants to handover possession to the  

plaintiffs.  He submitted that the order dated 13.09.2007  

passed by the MRTP Commission directing handing over  

possession of the plot to the complainant is thus without  

jurisdiction.  He submitted that this Court in Kiran     Singh    

and     Others   vs. Chaman     Paswan     and     others   (AIR 1954 SC  

340) has held that an order without jurisdiction is a nullity  

and can be challenged in collateral proceedings.  In reply to  

the submission on behalf of the petitioners that Review  

Application No. 16 of 2007 was filed beyond 30 days and  

belatedly, he submitted that under Section 13(2) of the  

MRTP Act, the MRTP Commission has the power to revoke  

any order passed by it “at any time”.  

5.  For deciding the contention raised on behalf of the  

petitioners that the order dated 13.09.2007 of the MRTP  

Commission was a consent order, we must look at the order  

6

Page 7

dated 13.09.2007 of the MRTP Commission, which is quoted  

hereinbelow:

“We have heard the arguments for some time of  the parties.  The parties are at issue regarding the  balance amount payable by the complainant to the  respondent towards balance installments or  interest thereon.  The other controversy is  regarding the formalities namely certificate of SSI  Registration and a NOC from Pollution Control  Department of the State.  Earlier the complainant  had submitted a provisional SSI certificate which  is already expired.

Complainant now undertakes to furnish the fresh  SSI certificate to the respondent positively within  one month.  Respondent shall handover the  possession within next two weeks thereafter to  the complainant.  As regards the balance amount  if any due, the respondents shall submit a  detailed chart giving the dates at which the  subsequent installments were due and amount  payable on each due date.

It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for  the respondent that the complainant should hand  over these documents to Mr. Dinesh Jain, Legal  Adviser of UPSIDC at Surajpur Office with  intimation to the counsel for the respondent who  will ensure that the possession is delivered to the  complainant within next two weeks.

The SSI certificate earlier submitted by the  complainant was provisional and has already  expired.  Therefore, an issuance of that certificate  by the concerned authority will not stand in the  way of their issuing a fresh SSI certificate.  The  General Manager, District Industry Centre, Greater  NOIDA is directed to issue the SSI certificate at the  earliest after compliance of the necessary  

7

Page 8

formalities.  A copy of the order be given “dasti” to  the complainant.

List on 1st November, 2007 for further directions.

Sd./- (Hon’ble J. Sri O.P. Dwivedi, Chairman) &  (Sri D.C. Gupta, Member)”

On a reading of the order of the order dated 13.09.2007, we  

do not find that the directions in the said order to the  

respondents to handover the possession of the plot to the  

petitioners was based on the consent of the learned  

Advocates appearing for the respondents and this is what  

has been held by the MRTP Commission also in the  

impugned order dated 04.03.2009.  Thus, the contention of  

the petitioners that the order dated 13.09.207 of the MRTP  

Commission was a consent order is misconceived.

6. It is not disputed by the petitioners that Review  

Application No. 16 of 2007 was entertained by the MRTP  

Commission under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the  

MRTP Act.  Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the MRTP Act is  

quoted hereinbelow:        

8

Page 9

“13(2) Any order made by the Commission  may be amended or revoked at any time in  the manner in which it was made.”

The language of sub-section (2) of Section 13 makes it clear  

that the MRTP Commission may amend or revoke any order  

in the manner in which it was made “at any time”.  The  

expression “at any time” would mean that no limitation has  

been prescribed by the legislature for the MRTP Commission  

to amend or revoke an order passed by it.  Hence, the  

argument on behalf of the petitioners that the MRTP  

Commission could not have entertained the Review  

Application for recalling the order dated 13.09.2007 beyond  

the period of 30 days has no foundation in law.  Moreover,  

the order dated 13.09.2007 of the MRTP Commission on its  

plain reading was only an interim order and the MRTP  

Commission could modify or revoke the interim order  

directing the respondents to handover physical possession  

of the plot to the petitioners if it thought that such a  

direction could only be considered at the time of finally  

deciding the complaint.  We therefore do not find any  

infirmity in the order dated 04.03.2009 of the MRTP  

Commission recalling the direction to handover physical  

9

Page 10

possession of the allotted plot to the petitioner saying that  

this direction can be considered at the stage of final  

adjudication of the complaint.  

7. On a perusal of the impugned order dated  

04.03.2009, however, we find that although the respondents  

cited the judgment of this Court in Ghaziabad Development  

Authority v. Ved Prakash Aggarwal (supra) and contended  

before the MRTP Commission that the MRTP Commission  

had no authority to order handing over of possession and  

that the jurisdiction was only with the Civil Court to order  

specific performance of the contract, the MRTP Commission  

has observed that this contention cannot be dealt with while  

passing the interim order and can only be decided at the  

time of final adjudication of the complaint.  Hence, we are  

not called upon to decide the question whether the MRTP  

Commission has power to direct handing over the  

possession of the plot to the complainant and this question  

can be decided by the MRTP Commission at the stage of  

final adjudication of the complaint.   

10

Page 11

8.   In the result, we do not find any merit in these  

Special Leave Petitions and accordingly we decline to grant  

special leave to the petitioners to appeal against the order  

dated 04.03.2009 of the MRTP Commission and the order  

dated 05.01.2010 of the Competition Appellate Tribunal.  

The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed with no order as  

to costs.      

.……………………….J.                                                        (A. K. Patnaik)

………………………..J.                                                        (Swatanter Kumar)

New Delhi, May 08, 2012.    

11