HC Affirms CCI’s Stand; Petitioners Can Refile u/s 19(1)(a) as DTCP’s Act Contradicted Interim Order on Development Charges

Case Details: ILD Housing Projects (P.) Ltd. v. CCI - [2025] 173 taxmann.com 568 (HC-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sachin Datta, J.
• Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv., Gurmeher Sistani, Ms Aashna Chawla, Advs., Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv., Vijay Nair, Manoranjan Sharma & Deeptanshu Jain, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv., Udaya Jain, Ms Geetika Jain, Harsh Jaswal, Ranjan Mishra, Advs., Alok Sangwan, Sr. AAG, Haryan, Sumit Kumar Sharma & Rajat Sangwan, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner, Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India-NCR (CREDAI-NCR), was an organisation representing real estate developers in the NCR region. The petitioners filed a complaint/information before the CCI against DTCP for levying unfair and discriminatory terms and conditions regarding charging and collection of External Development Charges (EDC) and Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC).

The CCI, by the interim order dated 01-08-2018, directed DTCP to refrain from taking any coercive steps regarding the payment of EDC and licenses granted to the petitioner. Subsequently, the DTCP issued an office order on 02-05-2019 implementing the directions passed by the CCI in the order dated 01-08-2018.

The petitioners filed a representation before the CCI to withdraw the case, which was allowed by the CCI by order dated 13-7-2022. Thereafter, DTCP issued an office order in which the office order dated 02-05-2019 was recalled/withdrawn by DTCP in light of the CCI disposing of a complaint filed by the petitioners vide order dated 13-07-2022.

Then, the petitioner challenged the said order, and CCI communicated that there is no provision to re-open/review closed cases in which final orders had been passed and suggested that the petitioners should either file fresh information or an appropriate Interlocutory Application under the relevant provision of the Competition Act.

Petitioners filed an application under section 42 of the Competition Act, praying for the initiation of action and the imposition of a penalty against DTCP and its director for contravening orders passed by the CCI.

However, the CCI dismissed the said application by the impugned order on the premise that no directives were issued by the CCI in the final order. Thus, there could be no occasion for failure to comply with the order/directions. Thereafter, petitioners filed an instant petition seeking to assail the order passed by the CCI.

High Court Held

The High Court held that petitioners could file fresh information under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 and the CCI was requested to consider the matter urgently in light of the anomalous conduct of DTCP.