HUDA vs Manoranjan Kumar Dube

DELAY of 160 days in filing revision petition is condoned.

CHALLENGE in this revision by the opposite party-HUDA is to the order dated 1.1.2009 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula dismissing appeal against the order dated 23.4.2008 of a District Forum whereby Authority was directed to allot a booth to the respondent on depositing by him the amount as per rules within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order.

ON 29.12.2005, the Authority auctioned 43 commercial sites/shops in Sector-6, Dharuhera. Respondent gave bid of Rs. 13,40,000 for basement booth No. 50, which was the highest. 10% of the amount was deposited vide receipt No. 44584 dated 29.11.2005 by the respondent. Since the Authority did not issue allotment letter the respondent filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the Authority. It was, inter alia, pleaded by the Authority that the auction was cancelled and deposited amount was remitted by cheque No. 633394 dated 1.6.2006 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce to the respondent but the envelope containing cheque was received back as the respondent was not found at the given address.

SUBMISSION advanced by Mr. R.S. Badhran for the Authority is two folds: (i) under Regulation 6 of the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 1978, unless the bid is accepted by the competent authority i.e. Chief Administrator the sale is not final and authority has the discretion to cancel the bid. Such a discretion was exercised in this case and bid of the booth in question of the respondent was never accepted by the competent authority; (ii) it being sale of booth in public auction the complaint itself is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In support of the former limb of submission, reliance has been placed on the decision in Harpal Singh v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, 2001 (2) RCR (Civ.) (DB). In support of later limb of contention, decision in UT Chandigarh Administration and Anr. v. Amarjeet Singh and Ors., II (2009) CPJ 1 (SC)=II (2009) SLT 736=(2009) 4 SCC 660, has been relied upon. Both these decisions fully support the two fold submissions advanced by Mr. Badhran, Advocate. It is not the case of respondent that the bid given by him for the said booth was accepted by the Chief Administrator. Thus, the order for allotment of the booth in question after receiving balance amount could not have been passed. Further, it being a case of sale of the booth in public auction, the complaint itself is not maintainable under the said Act, in view of Amarjeet Singh''s case (supra). Accordingly, on both the grounds the order passed by the District Forum as affirmed by State Commission is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. Revision Petition allowed.