New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has sought a response of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on a plea by DDA seeking a stay on the probe against its officials in connection with delay in handing over of a flat to an allotee under its 2010 housing scheme.
Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has in its petition questioned whether CCI has the jurisdiction to probe the land-owning agency and its officials on the complaint which had also alleged that several clauses of the housing scheme were heavily loaded in its favour.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru, while issuing the notice to CCI and seeking its response within three weeks, refused to stay the probe ordered by the regulator against DDA and its officials.
The court, however, said if CCI passes any final order, it will not be given effect to for four weeks to enable DDA to challenge the same. It will hear the matter on November 27.
During the proceedings, CCI told the court that an initial report has already been filed by its Director General who was probing the matter and a supplementary report will also be filed soon.
DDA had, in its plea filed by advocate Rahul Goel, sought the court to stay the CCI inquiry against the authority as well as its Directors of Housing, till disposal of a writ petition filed by the complainant seeking interest on the amount paid by him for the flat.
The authority has also denied, in its petition, the allegations of anti-competitive practices against it.
CCI had in 2013 ordered a probe against DDA on the complaint of Adla Satya Narayan Rao who had alleged that the flat alloted to him in Vasant Kunj was incomplete while DDA in its scheme had said that all flats were ready.
Rao had also alleged contravention of the Competition Act by DDA and had added that various clauses of its 2010 scheme were heavily loaded in favour of the land-owning agency.
After hearing the complainant and DDA, CCI had come to the conclusion that a prima facie case had been made out for investigation into the allegations.
In 2014, Rao moved the high court seeking possession of the flat as well as interest on the amount paid by him for it on June 24, 2012.
During the proceedings on Rao's plea, being heard by another bench, DDA had handed over possession of the flat to him after taking care of all the deficiencies in it that were pointed out by him.
The only issue that remains before that bench is whether any interest is payable to Rao as sought by him.