M/S. A.B.N.A. AND ORS.versusTHE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. U.P.S.I.D.C. LIMITED, KANPUR & ANR.

                        [2012) 4 S.C.R. 280


A                    M/S. A.B.N.A. AND ORS.
                                 v.
    THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MIS. U.P.S.l.D.C. LIMITED,
                    KANPUR & ANR.
           (SLP (C) Nos. 16116-16117 of 2010)
B                          MAY 08, 2012

        [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

        Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 -
C s. 13(2) - Allotment of plot- Possession not given - Allottee's
  complaint to MRTP Commission - During pendency of
  complaint, interim application seeking physical possession
  of the plot - Commission by order dated 13.9.2007 passing
  direction to handover possession to the a//ottee - Review
o application by the opposite party - The Commission recalled
  the order dated 13. 9. 2007 whereby it had directed to handover
  the possession - Review application filed by the allottee
  dismissed - In SLP, plea of the allottee that the order dated
  13.9.2007 could not have been recalled being a consent order
E and that review application was barred by limitation - Held:
  There is no infirmity in the order of the Commission whereby
  it recalled the direction to handover possession to allottee on
  the ground that the direction could be considered at the stage
  of final adjudication - The order dated 13.9.2007 was not a
F consent order- The order dated 13.9.2007 being an interim
  order could have been modified or revoked - Commission
  has power u/s. 13 (2) to amend or revoke any order at any
  time hence it is not barred by limitation - Petition dismissed.

      Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Ved Prakash
G Aggarwal (2008) 7SCC 686: 2008 (8) SCR 676; Kiran Singh
  and Ors. v. Chaman Paswan and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 340: 1955
  SCR 117 - referred to.


H                               280
 A.B.N.A. AND ORS. v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.                  281
           U.P.S.l.D.C. LIMITED, KANPUR

                       Case Law Reference:                            A
     2008 (8) SCR 676           Referred to.            Para 4

     1955 SCR 117               Referred to.            Para 4
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
                                                                      B
16116-16117 of 2010.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 04.03.2009 of the
M.R.T.P.C. New Delhi, in RA-16 of 2007 and order dated
05.01.2010 of the Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
in RA-06 of 2009, in UTPE-119 of 2000.                                c
     Petitioner-In-Person.
    Aarti Upadhyay, Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay for the
Respondents.
     The Order of the Court was delivered                             D
     A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. 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 order dated               E
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
                                                                      F
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      G
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
                                                                      H
   282       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A 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
B plot within next two weeks to the 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
c 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
0 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
E 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. The petitioner No.3, who appeared in-person and
F 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,
G 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
H Commission recalling the order dated 13.09.2007 in Review
 A.B.N.A. AND ORS. v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, MIS.                  283
  U.P.S.l.D.C. LIMITED, KANPUR [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
Application No.16 of 2007 is illegal and is liable to be set aside.   A
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       B
filed contempt petition for violation of the order dated
18.12.2007 as well as a petition for executing the order 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      c
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
                                                                      0
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       E
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                     F
Aggarwal ((2008) 7 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          G
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              H
    284       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012} 4 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
  dated 13.09.2007 of the MRTP Commission, which is quoted
C 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
D         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.
E
          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
F
          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
G         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.
H         The SSI certificate earlier submitted by the complainant
                                                                               •


      A.B.N.A. AND ORS. v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. 285
       U.P.S.l.D.C. LIMITED, KANPUR [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

          was provisional and has already expired. Therefore, an           A
          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 formalities. A copy of         B
          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)"
                                                                           c
     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          D
     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             E
     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
     herein below:
         "13(2) Any order made by the Commission may be
                                                                           F

_,       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                G
     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
                                                                           H
    286      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
C direction to handover physical 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
D judgment of this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority
  v. Ved P~akash 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
E 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
F 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.
      8. In the result, we do not find any merit in these Special
  Leave Petitions and accordingly we decline to grant special
G 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.
    K.K.T.                    Special Leave Petitions dismissed.
H