CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD vs RAMESH CHANDER SETHI

REVISION Petition No. 1328 of 1997 has been filed by the Chandigarh Housing Board, (opp. party before the District Forum and appellant before the State Commission) against the order dated 13.3.1997 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, in Appeal Case No. 59 of 1996.

FACTS of the case fall in a narrow compass. The complainant (respondent before us), a Police Officer who was associated with anti-terrorist operations in the State of Punjab received grievous injury on account of a bomb blast by terrorists resulting in the amputation of his left leg. Under a scheme of the Chandigarh Housing Board for special allotment of dwelling units from the discretionary quota by the Administrator, U.T. Administration, Chandigarh to terrorist victims, gallantry medal holders or national award winners, the complainant had applied on 19.4.1991 for allotment of a HIG flat. After consideration of the cases of some applicants under the discretionary quota, the petitioner-herein (opp. party before the State Commission) issued to the complainant on 16.8.1991 a letter of allotment of MIG type flat which he accepted; the terms and conditions of allotment were issued on 31.5.1993. Subsequently, the complainant represented through his application dated 2.9.1993 for allotment of a HIG flat in lieu of the MIG flat allotted to him. The said request was acceded to by the petitioner and the complainant was allotted in October, 1993 a HIG category unit which he accepted. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum pleading that the Administrator. U.T., Chandigarh, had actually ordered on 3.7.1991 the allotment of a HIG flat to him but the same was changed to MIG by the Housing Board and prayed for a direction, (a) to charge the price of HIG flat allotted to him in October, 1993 at the price prevailing in July, 1991 when he was allotted MIG category flat, (b) not to charge interest and watch and ward charges for fixing the price, and (c) to pay him Rs. 1 lakh as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as costs. The District Forum accepted the contentions of the complainant and held that there was deficiency in service. The Forum, therefore, ordered that the cost of HIG flat allotted to the complainant in October, 1993 should be that prevailing on 3.7.1991, the date on which the Administrator approved the proposal for allotment of flat to the complainant and directed the Board to refund the excess amount paid by the complainant with 18% interest p.a. from the date of recovery till the date of actual refund and the amount received from the complainant by way of interest, ground rent and watch and ward charges. The Forum further ordered that while calculating price, the deemed date of allotment of the flat should be kept in view, and excess amount on all these counts recovered from the complainant be also refunded with interest at the above rate. Besides compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- were awarded in favour of the complainant. When the Board went in appeal before the State Commission, the latter confirmed the order of the District Forum with the only modification of setting aside the direction for compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. The Board has preferred the present Revision Petition against the above said order of the State Commission. We have heard the Counsel appearing on both sides and carefully perused the records. As per the notings in the Board''s file (p. 82 of the paper book), two HIG units were available at the relevant time. There is also a copy of a note of Administrator''s Secretariat dated 20.6.1991 conveying to the Adviser to the Administrator (AA) and Chairman of the Housing Board the order of the Administrator for allotment of a HIG unit to one Smt. Shanta Bhardwaj, wife of Sri Rattan Lal Sharma who was gunned down by terrorists in April, 1991 (p. 87 of the paper book). Several requests for allotment under discretionary quota including that of the respondent-complainant were processed and put up by the CEO of the Housing Board to the Chairman of the Board on 3.7.1991 who in turn submitted the same to the AA (p. 82 of the paper-book). The conclusion of the State Commission and District Forum about unauthorised change of the category of allotment to the respondent-complainant from HIG to MIG by the Board is based on the notings in this page. It is a fact that there is a correction against his name in respect of the category allotted. However, the Board in its version had averred that this correction in the noting of the CEO was carried out by the AA and initialled by him. On the other hand, both the District Forum and the State Commission went on the presumption that the modification was done after the Administrator had approved the proposals of the CEO. It appears that the FORA did not take an overall view of the position emanating from these notings; with one out of the two HIG units already allotted to Smt. Shanta Bhardwaj on 20.6.1991 itself and the proposal on p. 82 to allot one HIG unit to Smt. Shashi Gupta, wife of Sh. Vijay Gupta who was gunned down by terrorist on 30.5.1991, the modification in respect of allotment to the respondent-complainant from HIG to MIG unit is understandable.

This is a case of request for allotment of flat by the respondent-complainant under discretionary quota with reference to which the Board made an allotment immediately. Being discretionary quota, it does not vest any right on the respondent-complainant in respect of a specified category. The decision on the category to be allotted falls in the discretionary purview of the Administrator. Even so, when he requested for a change for a higher category (HIG) in lieu of MIG unit allotted to him, this request was also acceded to by the Board. This being the position there is actually no cause of action for the complainant to seek remedy under the Consumer Protection Act. Further, what happened within the administrative framework of the Administrator in allotments of specific categories to different applicants under the discretionary quota is not for us to go into since that does not fall within the purview of this Forum. We are concerned with the application made by the respondent-complainant for allotment and the final allotment letter given by the authority and insofar as there was no delay or deficiency alleged therein, notwithstanding the fact that it was a discretionary quota, no consumer dispute has arisen.

IN the light of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that both the District Forum and the State Commission had erroneously proceeded ab initio, inasmuch as there was no consumer dispute maintainable under the Act. IN the result, the order of the State Commission substantially confirming the order of the District Forum is not sustainable. We, therefore, set aside the order of the State Commission and dismiss the complaint. The Revision Petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.