Challenging the cancellation of allotment as arbitrary and also A 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 GOA was not only arbitrary but also indicative of its monopolistic hold on the land and therefore, it amounted to an unfair trade practice B under the MRTP Act. The. GOA entered appearance and de- )I nied the allegations made in the complaint, inter alia, alleging that no specific allotment order was made by the GOA and, therefore, cancellation ·of the same did not arise at all. It was further stated by the GOA in their written objection to the com- c plaint 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 allot'>(ment of the land could not be made and therefore, the refund 0 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 E 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 GOA to allot 90 sq. mtrs. of plot to the re... spondent in Govindpuram Scheme and in case the plot was not available, to hand over the possession of vacant plot of the same F size to the respondent in other schemes nearby the Govindpuram Scheme at the previously decided price. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the GOA has come up in appeal in this Court.
