The Competition Commission of India dismissed complaints alleging abuse of dominant position by the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, and HSVP in levying External and Infrastructure Development Charges (EDC/IDC). The Commission held that DTCP’s actions were purely statutory and regulatory, not commercial, and therefore outside the scope of the Competition Act. Since the legality of EDC/IDC had already been upheld by constitutional courts, no prima facie case under Section 4 was made out.

Legal Issue

The principal issue before the Competition Commission of India was whether the Department of Town and Country Planning, Government of Haryana (DTCP) and Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) had abused their dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 by imposing allegedly unfair, discriminatory and one-sided conditions relating to levy and collection of External Development Charges (EDC) and Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC) from real estate developers, without corresponding obligations to complete development works within a stipulated timeframe

Brief Facts

The information was filed by ILD Housing Projects Private Limited and the Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Association of India–NCR (CREDAI-NCR) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002. The Informants alleged that DTCP and HSVP, being the sole statutory authorities empowered to grant licences for real estate development in Haryana, had abused their dominant position by imposing onerous and non-negotiable terms in Letters of Intent, Licence agreements and Bilateral Agreements.

It was contended that the Developers were compelled to pay EDC and IDC along with interest, even though the Opposite Parties failed to undertake corresponding external and infrastructure development works in a timely manner. The Informants further alleged arbitrary revision of charges, levy of interest without statutory backing, absence of effective grievance redressal mechanisms, and complete lack of reciprocity in contractual obligations.

The present information was filed pursuant to directions issued by the Delhi High Court on 07 April 2025, directing the Commission to urgently consider the matter while taking into account earlier investigations and relevant judicial pronouncements.

Court’s / Commission’s Analysis

The Commission examined the entire factual and legal matrix, including its earlier proceedings in Case No. 40 of 2017, the investigation report submitted by the Director General, and binding judicial precedents of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court of India.

At the outset, the Commission noted that the issue of levy of EDC and IDC, including the liability to pay interest thereon irrespective of completion of development works, had already been conclusively decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s VPN Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Commission held that the same issue could not be re-agitated before it, as doing so would offend judicial propriety.

The Commission further examined whether DTCP and HSVP could be considered “enterprises” engaging in commercial activity within a relevant market. Relying upon statutory provisions, the preamble of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, and authoritative precedents including ICAI v. CCI and Belaire Owners’ Association v. DLF Ltd., the Commission held that the activities undertaken by DTCP were purely statutory and regulatory in nature. Issuance of licences and regulation of urban development pursuant to legislative mandate could not be construed as economic or commercial activity amenable to scrutiny under the Competition Act.

The Commission also observed that the allegedly unfair and one-sided terms in the LOI, Licence and Bilateral Agreements flowed directly from statutory rules framed under the HDRUA Act, leaving no scope for negotiation or market-based bargaining. Since these terms emanated from legislative and regulatory frameworks, they could not be subjected to competition law scrutiny.

In view of these findings, the Commission concluded that no relevant market required delineation and no prima facie case of abuse of dominant position was made out against the Opposite Parties.

Judgment / Order

The Competition Commission of India held that the conduct of the Department of Town and Country Planning, Government of Haryana and Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran did not disclose any prima facie contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The information was accordingly closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, and all applications seeking interim relief were also disposed of.

Access the official judgement/order here

Case Title

ILD Housing Projects Private Limited & Anr. vs. Department of Town and Country Planning, Government of Haryana & Anr.

Forum

Competition Commission of India, New Delhi

Case Numbers

Case No. 14 of 2025
along with
Case No. 16 of 2025

Date of Decision

16 December 2025

Coram

Ms. Ravneet Kaur, Chairperson
Mr. Anil Agrawal, Member
Ms. Sweta Kakkad, Member
Mr. Deepak Anurag, Member