HUDA vs Ramanand Dhaka

THE Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) has filed this revision petition against concurrent orders of the District Forum, Sonepat in Complaint No. 180 of 2004 and of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No. 906 of 2005. The petition has been filed with inordinate delay of 326 days.

THE application for condonation of this delay categorically states that, "The Hon ''ble State Commission announced the order on 12.5.2011 and issued the first copy on 5.7.2011 ".

It is therefore surprising that revision petitioner has also simultaneously filed IA No. 3 of 2012, praying for exemption from filing of the certified copy of the impugned order on the ground that it is not readily available with the petitioner. No explanation is offered why the certified copy of the order received on 5.7.2011 was not available with the petitioner for filing of the revision petition on 24.8.2012. From the above, it is also clear that the revision petitioner has taken more than 13 months to file the petition, from the admitted date of receipt of the impugned order. This delay is sought to be explained in the following words: "That after obtaining the copy the order the case was processed for taking the decision through various channels/branches of the petitioner authority i.e. Accounts Branch, and Estate Officer, HUDA Sonepat After processing of the said case through concerned division/branches the matter was referred to the legal branch and ultimately Legal Branch proposed for filing the revision petition and the matter was referred to the Administrator and the Administrator approved the proposal for filing the revision petition and the case back to the Legal Branch for engagement of Counsel and for preparation of the draft revision petition. The concerned branch engaged the Counsel. The relevant documents were supplied by the concerned branch to the Counsel for the petitioner. The Counsel for the petitioner prepared the draft revision petition after obtaining the relevant documents. The whole procedure was time consuming and due to that reasons the petitioner failed to file the revision petition within time. "

CONTENTS of the above para show total lack of details in explaining a huge delay of 326 days. We, therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting it and holding that the delay of 326 days has not been sufficiently explained. The revision petition therefore merits dismissal on the ground of limitation alone.

THE matter arises out of allotment of a plot to the Complainant/Respondent by HUDA/revision petitioner in Sonepat on 6.2.2001. Despite regular payment of price instalments by the Complainant, the possession was allegedly not handed over. More importantly, it was alleged by the Complainant that the development works like street lighting, water supply and sewage system, etc. were also not completed. The Complainant sought allotment of an alternate plot together with interest and compensation till actual physical possession of the same is given to him. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed HUDA to allot an alternative plot within 30 days. The District Forum also directed the OP not to charge interest or penalty. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal of HUDA on the grounds of delay as well as absence of merit in the case. While doing so, the State Commission has observed: "On merits, there is no force in this appeal. It is the opposite parties-HUDA who has failed to develop area and also failed to deliver the actual physical possession of the plot in question to the complainant. Moreover the area of the plot No. 242/7 allotted to the complainant was very less than the area as mentioned in the letter of allotment. It is the appellant-opposite parties who had utilized the hardened money deposited by the complainant for a long period and as such the deficiency of service on the part of HUDA-opposite parties has been established on the record. Under the facts and circumstances of the case we find no case of interference in the well reasoned order passed by the District Forum. "

WE have heard Mr. R.S. Badhran, Advocate on behalf of the revision petitioner and perused the records as filed with the petition. Learned Counsel could not point to any specific instance of illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which could justify invocation of jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. An examination of the revision petition itself shows that grounds of challenge against the impugned order are very vague and non-specific. For example, in para 3 details of allotment of the plot are given, but in para 4(g) of the revision petition, it is stated that both the Fora below have failed to consider the fact that the present dispute does not fall within the definition of ''consumer dispute ''. However, the petition does not attempt to explain how the Complainant is not a consumer or how is the complaint excluded from the purview of Consumer Protection Act. We, thus, have no hesitation in holding that the revision petitioner has completely failed to make out a case against the impugned order.

THE revision petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as merit. A cost of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) is awarded in favour of the Complainant. The order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No. 906 of 2005 is confirmed. Revision Petition dismissed.