Sahayak Avas Ayukit vs Ravindra Kumar Pachauri

THIS is the second time that this matter has reached this Commission. On earlier occasion aggrieved by an Order dated 03.11.2008 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Lucknow) (for short The State Commission), the petitioner herein approached this Commission vide Revision Petition No. 311 of 2009. Vide an Order dated 19.2.2009, this Commission dismissed the said Revision Petition and confirmed the order so passed by the State Commission. It appears that the petitioner then approached the Hon?ble Supreme Court by way of SLP and vide an order dated 05.1.2010, the Hon?ble Supreme Court was pleased to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission and remitted the appeal to the board of the State Commission for deciding the same afresh. Vide impugned Order dated 28.9.2010, the State Commission has disposed of the appeal of the petitioner on merits and has dismissed the appeal as being without any merits.

THE appeal before the State Commission was filed against the Order dated 02.7.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum-I Agra in complaint No. 281 of 2004. By the said Order, the District Forum had allowed the complaint of the complainant ex-parte with a direction to the opposite party (Sahayak Avas Ayukt, Agra Zone, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Agra to issue allotment letter on the basis of auction within 45 days of the passing of the order intimating him the balance amount payable by the complainant with the stipulation that if the order was not complied with within the stipulated period, interest @ 6% per annum shall be payable on the amount from the date of the order. The facts and circumstances, which led to the filing of the complaint and passing of the Order are amply noted in the order of the State Commission and need no repetition at our end. However, for deciding the present proceedings, we may simply take note of the fact that auction was held in respect of a commercial plot No. C-3, Sector, 13 measuring 360 square meter. on 18.1.2002 at the reserved price of Rs. 3,720/- per square meter. Complainant, though the sole bidder at the said auction gave his bid @ Rs. 4,150/- per square meter and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of Demand Draft as a condition of auction. No decision was communicated to the complainant either about acceptance of his bid or its rejection up till 02.7.2004. Vide a communication of the even dated; the bid of the complainant was cancelled which led to controversy. Complaint was filed seeking quashing of the cancellation order dated 02.7.2004 and allotment of the plot to him. On being noticed, the opposite party-Vikas Parishad through represented on record before the District Forum but despite repeated opportunities granted for the purpose no written version to the complaint was filed and therefore, assuming the case of the complainant as correct, the District Forum allowed the complaint in the above manner.

We have heard Mr. Vishnu Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-Parishad and Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate representing the respondent have given our consideration to their submissions. In this case, crucial question, which was required to be considered by the Fora below was as to whether the action of the opposite party-Parishad is sitting over the matter for about 2-1/2 years after holding the auction and canceling the auction after such a long period was in total disregard of a G.O. issued by the Principal Secretary of the Housing Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh was justified or not. The State Commission has quoted the G.O. in the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has reiterated that till such time the auction was accepted and communicated to the complainant, he had no vested right for the allotment of the plot in question. The State Commission has repelled this contention by observing as under: "Acareful perusal of the above quoted G.O. would clearly indicate that the Government had not approved the dilatory tactics of the authorities of the Parishad and eventually canceling the auction bid on one pretext or the other. This G.O. expects the authorities to approve or disapprove the auction within twenty four hours. Also it postulates that arbitrary decision in such a matter should be avoided particularly when the auction bid offered by a bidder is above the reserved price. The G.O. was issued in the back drop of dilatory tactics and practice being observed by the authorities of the Parishad in such matters. If we put the present cancellation order to the above text-scale of the G.O., we find that the guidelines laid down in that G.O. have been completely ignored by the authorities. Their silence for a long period of 2-1/2 years without having any communication with the complainant clearly speaks a lack of bonafide if not malafide and the reason for cancellation is also not either in accordance with the rules or practice or norms. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Parishad has not been able to show us any rule which may prescribe that a single bid offered by a bidder in an auction held after advertisement will not be acceptable. Also there is no practice or norm to plead that the auction bid of every single bidder shall be subject to cancellation. What more important to note is that in the auction notice regarding the plot in question there was no condition that single bid of a bidder will be liable to be rejected on this ground alone. A perusal of this advertisement of the auction notice appears to indicate that for commercial plot either sealed bids were invited or there was an option in the open bid after receiving the token money at the site. Admittedly, no sealed bid except that of the complainant was received by the Parishad. Although the appellant?s contention in this respect is that the complainant?s sealed bid had been received yet the complainant denies before us the said fact and submits that he had participated in the open bid and he started with the bid of Rs. 3,900/- per square meter. The bid sheet which has been filed before us appears to indicate that the auctioneers of the Parishad were not agreeable to the said offer and the complainant then had to offer bids as follows: Token No.Rs. T-1 3,900/- T-1 4,000/- T-1 4,050/- T-1 4,100/- T-1 4,125/- T-1 4,150/- Finally hammer was down with the bid of Rs. 4,150/-. All the requisite formalities were observed by the auctioneers and the complainant. There is no sign of any irregularity anywhere in the entire proceedings and as stated above there is no rule, practice or norm which could have encouraged the authorities of the Parishad to reject a single bid offer of a lone bidder. We are therefore, of the decisive view that the cancellation order issued by the Additional Commissioner of the Parishad about 2-1/2 years after was tainted with unjust, unreasonable and illegal decision."

HAVING regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances has noted above, we are of the opinion that the above findings of the State Commission is fully justified on record and cannot be faultered on any ground. The State Commission was also right in holding that despite repeated opportunities being granted to the petitioner-Parishad it had failed to file its written version before the District Forum, which led to the ex-parte proceedings against them and thereafter, the order directing the allotment of the plot in question.

HAVING considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, we are of the clear opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Commission. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.