ASHISH KUMAR BISWAS vs D.D.A.

THIS revision petition has arisen out of the Order dated 6.9.95 of the State Commission, Delhi on a petition under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for enforcing the basic order passed by the State Commission on 7th April, 1994.

IT is necessary for the disposal of this revision petition to notice the case set up by the complainant before the State Commission. The complainant had get himself registered in 6th Self Financing Scheme, 1985 and paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 17.7.85 as registration charges. The complainant pleaded that the Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA) released 1828 flats in Category-3 out of which 25% flats were reserved for scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and thus 450 flats were to be allotted to SC/ST category. The complainant claimed that in normal course he would have been allotted a flat but his name was not considered along with SC/ST registrants, but on the other hand it was considered under general category. It was pleaded that the mistake was admitted by the DDA who proposed to allot a flat to the complainant in subsequent draw of lots and at the price at which the flats were allotted in 1990. The complainant claimed that he was entitled to flat at the same price at which the flats were allotted in 1990 to the other applicants in his category and that there has been a failure and deficiency of the DDA. The State Commission after noticing the version of the DDA allowed the complaint. The operative part of the order reads as under: "For the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint with costs and direct the respondent to allot a flat in category-3 to the complainant at the price on which similar flats had been allotted to other SC/ST applicants in 1990, within a period of three months. He should be allowed to pay the price of the flat in the instalments in which the other applicants of that category in that draw were allowed to pay. Costs Rs. 1,500/-/''

THE complainant who is petitioner herein moved an application under Section 27 of the Act as the order was not complied with within the period allowed by the State Commission. The State Commission received the reply of the DDA and noted its version. DDA reiterated its stand that under SFS scheme the construction is made with the financial participation of the registrants and where an individual is inducted at a latter stage, he is charged interest on the instalments which had already been paid by the other registrants. It is also pleaded that the estimated cost of the flat allocated to the complainant in the year 1990 was Rs. 5,39,700/- and the applicant had been asked to pay 90% of the estimated cost which works out to Rs. 4,85,780/- in the letter dated 1.12.94 allocating SFS flat on second floor in Pocket-G at Kondli Gharoli residential scheme in the mini draw held on 17.11.91. The complainant placed on record the status of the flat allocated to him and pleaded that it was still under construction and thus there has been no compliance of the order of the State Commission.

THE State Commission in the impugned order dated 6.9.95 did notice that it is not possible for the State Commission to give a fresh direction which is at variance with the direction given in the main order but passed the order which is in clear variation to the following effect: "(i) The period specified in allocation letter dated 1.12.94 having elapsed a fresh allocation letter/allotment letter shall be issued by the respondent within 4 weeks of the receipt of this order. (ii) The 6 monthly instalments shall be re-scheduled, the 1st instalment being payable on the expiry of two months from the date of allocation/ allotment letter and later instalments being fixed after expiry of six months thereof and so on. (iii) The applicant shall be given adjustment on account of the registration money deposited by him together with interest accrued thereon up to the date of allocation/allotment besides Rs. 1,750/- allowed as costs."

This Commission has already taken the view that it is not permissible to go behind the basic order in the proceedings under Section 27 of the Act. The proceedings under Section 27 are in the nature of execution proceedings of the basis order. The basic order could not be amended, modified or varied in the proceedings under Section 27. There is no jurisdiction to go behind the basic order. In this case the appeal of the DDA against the basic order dated 7.4.94 was dismissed by this Commission as barred by limitation. The basic order became final.

THE effect of the direction given in the impugned order dated 6.9.95 is to modify the basis order. This is clear distinction between the allotment of a flat which covers the flat already constructed and completed in all respects. The allocation of a flat is only earmarking a flat under construction. Even though the complainant has got himself registered for category 3 SFS flat from the SC/ST quota under the 6th Self Financing Scheme, 1985 of the DDA and paid Rs. 15,000/- on 17.7.85 as registration fee and may have been entitled to the allocation of flat, yet the basic order directs the DDA to allot a flat in category-3 at the price on which similar flats had been allotted to other SC/ST applicants in 1990. The DDA has to comply with this order without any modification or any variation of the terms of the basic order dated 7th April, 1994.

THE impugned order of the State Commission dated 6.9.95 is set aside. DDA is, however, granted three months'' time from the receipt of this order to comply with the directions contained in the basic order dated 7th April, 1994. The parties will bear their own costs.