JAI BHAGWAN GUPTA vs Estate Officer

HAVING suffered two adverse orders, initially from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short the District Forum) and subsequently from the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (for short the State Commission), that petitioner Jai Bhagwan has filed this revision petition.

BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for the allotment of an industrial plot on 30th of November, 1977, for which he had paid the requisite fee of Rs.1000/-. However, he was not given any intimation with regard to any allotment for years together. He made repeated representations over the years but of no avail. Finally, when the opposite party again published an advertisement for the allotment of industrial plots by open auction during 2007 i.e. after a gap of almost 30 years, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party; requesting the District Forum to direct the opposite party to consider his earlier registration and deposit of Rs.1000/- and allot him an industrial plot. In addition, he also sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment and also Rs.50,000/- towards the traveling and correspondence charges. He also prayed for cost of escalation assessed at Rs.7,70,000/-. The complaint was contested by the opposite party, who filed their written version and on consideration of the entire gamut of the evidence before it, the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding as under :- x) In addition to the aforesaid affidavit of AEO, OP has also submitted a letter written by Director Industries, UT, Chandigarh to the Estate Officer in which the Constitution of Screening Committee for the allotment of the Industrial Plots has been given. As per this letter the DIO is the Chairman of the Committee and AEO, UT and DPR (UT) were the members of the three member Screening Committee. This committee laid down the criteria for making the recommendation on the applications for allotment of Industrial plots as Chandigarh Administration had not decided the criteria for allotment of Industrial Plots earlier and allotment were to be decided based on the recommendation of the said committee. The Complainant again filed a counter affidavit, denying the averments of the OP, but once again nothing new was added in the counter affidavit in support of the Complainant. The Complainant is wholly and solely depending on the verbal assurances said to have been given by the OP to him for allotment of the Industrial Plot which have been specifically denied by the OP and which are not supported by any document/paper/evidence on record and thus the allegation made have not been substantiated or proved by any cogent evidence by the Complainant.

xi) Lastly, the Complainant has also submitted a long list of judgments/authorities in the replication submitted by him in support of his case. But one of these judgments are either relevant or support the present case, as these relate to altogether different issues/matters. The present complaint is only based on the so called assurances said to have been given by the OP to the Complainant for allotment of an Industrial Plot to him as countless industrial plots are lying vacant in the Industrial Area, but which have been stoutly and flatly denied by the OP in the written statement/affidavit/arguments. More so, the matter has already been extensively litigated at the highest Fora of judiciary i.e. Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the Honble Supreme Court of India and the contentions issue in contention has been finally clinched by the Apex Court on 13.4.2004 and therefore, the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration (OP) was clearly and obviously bound to comply with the orders of the Highest Courts of the country in letter and spirit and that is precisely, what has been done by him and the Chandigarh Admn. If in the process, the Complainant has somehow or the other been left out for allotment of an Industrial Plot to him, he himself is to blame for his own lapses especially his lack of interest over long years and there is no deficiency of service or indulgence in any unfair trade practice on the part of the OP on the issue of Non-allotment of an Industrial Plot to the Complainant.

As a result of the detailed analysis of the case and keeping in view the averments/pleadings/documents /evidence and other relevant papers submitted by both the parties, and after hearing the detailed arguments of learned counsel of OP and the Complainant in person, it is our considered view that the present complaint is completely baseless, devoid of any merit and carries no substance or weight whatsoever, carrying no points in favour of the Complainant. Therefore, it deserves rejection. We, therefore, dismiss the same. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

Aggrieved thereupon, the petitioner/complainant filed an appeal challenging the said order of the District Forum before the State Commission, who vide its detailed order has affirmed the above order of dismissal.

Aggrieved once again that the petitioner/complainant has approached this Commission seeking invocation of its supervisory jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and setting aside the order of the fora below.

THE petitioner/complainant has appeared in person and has argued his case himself. He has been given a patient hearing. In the main thrust of his argument, he submits that the State Commission has not properly applied its judicious mind, inasmuch as it has failed to consider that there was a continuing cause of action and its observation that the present complaint was filed by him on the 4th of June, 2007 after a period of 30 years is not sustainable. According to him, since the amount deposited by him during 1977 was refunded only during the year 2007, the cause of action should have been treated to have been continued until then. That part, he has contended that the State Commission has not considered that the opposite party had suppressed some material facts which would have gone in his favour. In support of his contentions, he has filed a large number of judgments of the Honble Supreme Court and orders of various foras, such as Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Commission and this Commission, on points which are not materially relevant to the facts of the case. THE decisions of the Honble supreme Court and orders of this Commission relied upon with regard to limitation, such as Lata Construction and others Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and another [S.C. & National Commission Consumer Law Cases (1996-2005), pg. 797]; Secretary, THE Dharwad District Cooperative Purchases & Sales Union and Another Vs. Sidlingappa Mallappa Hallad and Another [FA NO. 201 of 1991 decided on 24.04.1992]; and National THErmal Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr. Bhimsain [II (2007) CPJ 108 (NC)], have been passed in the background of a totality of different sets of facts. By giving a list of as many as 23 different judgments/orders of various foras, the complainant has only tried to impress this Commission without understanding that those orders/judgments would only expose him for the desperate attempt being made to rake up a very old case to get an industrial plot just for a deposit of Rs.1000/- in 1977. THE order passed by the State Commission is in very great detail and clearly brings out that even when he applied for the allotment of an industrial plot for the first time during the year 1977, the Director of Industries, U.T., Chandigarh, who was the authority competent to scrutinize and recommend, his case was not recommended by the Director of Industries. During the year 1981 when the Chandigarh Administration again invited applications for industrial plots, the complainant was asked to deposit difference of the earnest money, if he was so interested for allotment of an industrial plot, which he never did. THE chequered history of the case makes it evident that the matter of allotment became a subject matter of dispute between some allottees and the opposite party before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. It subsequently went before the Supreme Court in SLP. On this, the State Commission states as under :- THE writ petition (before the Punjab & Haryana High Court) was decided on 30.8.2001 against which SLPs were filed, which have also been decided on 13.4.2004. THE relief was given only to such of the applicants who were parties before the Honble High Court but the complainant was neither a party before the Honble High Court nor before the Honble Supreme Court of India and therefore, no allotment could be made in his favour. In this background, the complainant had absolutely no case for any allotment despite his clamour for the continuing cause of action and the opposite party had refunded his deposit of Rs.1000/-, which was received back undelivered, but had been again sent to him after revalidation on 4th of June, 2007.

THE State Commission has elaborately dealt with other contentions with regard to claim of complainant that he wrote a number of letters and has correctly dismissed the claim as the complainants claim to have sent those letters under UPC for which there cannot be any presumption of truth. Strangely, if he wrote so many letters, he never preferred to send even a single registered AD letter at some stage or the other. Only to be noted that the complainant is based at Chandigarh and the office of the opposite party too is at Chandigarh and he could have personally handed over his letters and obtained the receipt from the concerned authority. THE concurrent findings of the fora below are based on proper appreciation of the facts brought by evidence and this Commission does not find any legal infirmity, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in their order. THE revision petition, accordingly, is dismissed with no order as to costs.