Dec 31, 2021

CCI Dismisses Allegations that Chandigarh Housing Board Indulged in Anti-Competitive Conduct

Mr. Manmohan Singh (‘Informant’) had filed an information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act alleging a contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act against Chandigarh Housing Board (‘CHB’) and some of the officials of CHB.[1]

The Informant’s father was allotted a dwelling unit in Chandigarh through an allotment letter in November 1979. After the demise of the Informant’s father, the Informant had applied for the transfer of the dwelling unit in his name through an application in August 2009 as the other legal heirs of the said dwelling unit had relinquished their right. The Informant alleged that even after submitting all the required documents, CHB arbitrarily rejected his application by way of an order dated July 30, 2019. Such rejection had allegedly resulted in irreparable loss to the Informant as he had been unable to sell the said dwelling unit. This arbitrary conduct of CHB (and its officials) was alleged to be an anti-competitive conduct in contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The Informant prayed for the restoration of its application and a grant of compensation or damages of upto Rs 75,00,000 for the delay.

From a review of the information, CCI noted that the old citizens charter of CHB required the submission of an affidavit of the remaining legal heirs relinquishing their respective title/right, and that the Informant was required to file fresh affidavits with CHB, due to some inconsistency in the signature of one of the legal heirs in the previously filed joint affidavit. CCI further noted that the Informant had approached CHB in 2018 after a gap of six years, whereas CHB had asked the Informant to file a fresh affidavit concerning the relinquishment of rights in 2012. A new citizens charter was issued in 2018, subsequent to which, CHB sought submission of registered relinquishment deed from the Informant, based on the latest requirements.

CCI ultimately concluded that the issue raised by the Informant did not raise any competition concern, and would not result in a contravention of either Sections 3 or 4 of the Act. Accordingly, the matter was closed by CCI under Section 26(2) of the Act.


[1] Mr. Manmohan Singh v. Chairman Housing Board and Others, Case No. 31 of 2021, Order dated November 10, 2021.




These are the views and opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firm. This article is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal or other advice and you acknowledge that there is no relationship (implied, legal or fiduciary) between you and the author/AZB. AZB does not claim that the article's content or information is accurate, correct or complete, and disclaims all liability for any loss or damage caused through error or omission.