PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs PUNJAB KHAPATKAR SANGH

CHALLENGE in this revision is to the order dated 9.8.2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 5.12.2000 of a District Forum whereby demand of Rs. 70,592 towards non-construction charges raised by the petitioner/opposite party No. 1 was quashed. Before adverting to the submission advanced by Mrs. Rachna Joshi Issar for petitioner, few facts need be noticed. Plot No. 1552/C measuring 400 sq. yards, in Sector 38-39, Ludhiana was allotted to one H.S. Randhawa on 23.1.1995 by the petitioner Authority and it transferred in favour of Satish Nauhria and Savita Nauhria on whose behalf the complaint was filed by the respondent. Vide letter dated 22.11.1999, the petitioner demanded amount of Rs. 70,592 towards non-construction charges from the said transferees of the plot. Transferees alleged that non-construction charges can be levied only @ Rs. 16.50 per sq. yard and demand for the said amount being excessive was invalid. Complaint filed by the respondent was contested by the petitioner-Authority. It was denied that transferees are the consumers within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was alleged that in view of the terms and conditions of letter of allotment dated 23.1.1995, the allottee was to complete construction within three years from the date of issue of allotment letter after getting the plan of the proposed building approved by the Competent Authority which he failed to do. The allotment of plot in question was subject to the provisions contained in Punjab Urban Estates (Development & Regulation) Act, 1964 and the Rules framed thereunder. Since both the transferees had stepped into the shoes of H.S. Randhawa-original allottee, they are bound by the provision of the said Act and the Rules. It was claimed that the demand in question towards non-construction charges was made as per the latest policy formulated by the Department.

RELYING on the decision in H.U.D.A. v. Sunita, (2005) 2 SCC 479, the submission advanced by Mrs. Joshi, Adv. is that the amount of Rs. 70,592 towards non-construction charges was levied under the provisions of PUDA Act and the Rules/Regulations and this levy would not constitute deficiency in service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to her, the complaint itself by the transferees of the plot was not maintainable. Submission is fully supported by the ratio in Sunita''s case (supra). Orders passed by Fora below, thus, deserve to be set aside not being legally sustainable in law. Accordingly, while allowing revision, the orders passed by Fora below are set aside and complaint dismissed. No order as to cost. Revision Petition allowed.