RAJ KUMAR vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

PETITIONERS have filed this revision petition challenging the orders dated 9.1.2012 and 30.3.2011, passed by State Commission, Panchkula.

IT is the case of the petitioners that they filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum which was allowed in their favour,vide order dated 18.8.2006 and respondent/O.P. was directed to deliver the possession of Plot No. 429 in Sector-47, Gurgaon to petitioner No. 3. Further, respondent was burdened with cost of Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved by order of the District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission. When the appeal came up for hearing on 30.3.2011, State Commission passed the following - "During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellants/complainants has suffered following statement before this Commission: ''Statement of Mr. Anirudh Kush, Advocate for the res-pondent/complainant without oath. '' Stated that on the instruction of my client, I do not press the relief awarded by the District Form, Gurgaon in complaint case No. 553 of 2005 and same may be treated as withdrawn. However, respondent/complainant may be given liberty to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction to redress his grievances on the same cause of action. 30th March, 2011 Sd/- Justice R.S. Madan, RO and AC President, Sd/- Anirudh Kush, Sd/- B.M. Bedi, Adv. Judicial Member "

In view of the above statement of the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant, this appeal has been rendered infructuous and it is dismissed as such. However, liberty is granted to the respondent/complainant to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction to redress his grievance on the same cause of action. Respondent/complainant may seek exemption/condonation the time spent under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in view of the Judgment of the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in "LaxmiEngineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, reported in (1995 3 SCC 583). "

WHEN the petitioners came to know about the passing of the order dated 30.3.2011, they filed an application for recall of the said order on the ground that they never authorized their Counsel to make such statement for withdrawal of the complaint. Accordingly, petitioners filed an application for recall of the order. However, the same was dismissed by the State Commission,vide order dated 9.1.2012 on the ground that it has no power to recall.

UNDER these circumstances, the matter require consideration. Hence, issue notice of the main petition as well as application for condonation of delay to the respondent, returnable on 18.1.2013. Ordered accordingly.