Saroj Jaiswal vs ESTATE OFFICER-I, PSIEC LTD.

SHER Jang Singh resident of House No. 127, Phase-II, Mohali was allotted an industrial plot measuring 500 sq. yds. No. 526, Phase 526, Phase IX, Industrial Focal Point, Mohali on lease for a period of 99 years on 13.2.1992. It was on 19.7.1994 that he transferred his rights of occupation of this plot by means of a registered General Power of Attorney Annexure P-3 in favour of Mrs. Saroj Jaiswal, complainant No. 1. Mrs. Saroj Jaiswal approached the Estate Officer of Punjab State Industrial and Export Corporation for transfer of the plot in her name and it has been alleged that the delay had been on account of deficiency on the part of respondents. She has impleaded the Estate Officer-I as respondent No. 1, the Managing Director as respondent No. 2, Shri M.L. Sharma, Estate Officer in his individual capacity as respondent No. 3, Shri Vijay Gupta, the dealing Assistant as respondent No. 4 and has also impleaded SHER Jang Singh the original allottee as respondent No. 5. It has been specifically averred that the inaction on the part of the respondents in not transferring the said plot to complainant No. 1 is arbitrary, against law, against the provision of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882 and against various other provisions of law. A sum of Rs. 16,48,320/- has been claimed as loss alleging that the complainant could not get loan and other facilities for want of formal transfer of rights.

A. reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 wherein it has been averred that the complaint is false and vexatious and not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. It has further been averred that when the allottee was asked to furnish General Power of Attorney alongwith the affidavit, the complainant instead of complying with the said requirement, submitted transter documents. The respondents were not satisfied whether the General Power of Attorney still continues or it was revoked/ cancelled and whether the plot was free from all encumbrances. It was further averred that the respondents were ready to transfer the plot at any time provided the complainants submitted the documents properly together with the transfer fee. On 18.5.1995 the complainant was required to furnish a No Objection Certificate. But since the required information was not supplied by the allottee and the name of allottee mentioned in an application moved by complainant was Jang Singh instead of Sher Jang Singh was one of the reasons for delay. The various precautions have to be taken by the respondents as a part of their duty to avoid further litigation and complications because Power of Attorney is always revokable at any time. It has also been averred that there was a chance of its revocation at least 100 times prior to 24.2.1996 when the complainant moved for the transfer. It has further been averred that the General Power of Attorney holder failed to submit the proper affidavit required to consider the transfer of plot in favour of complainant No. 1 and that there was no deficiency on the part of the respondents because transfer of plot is a piece of work of great responsibility. No single person of the Corporation could take decision regarding it. It has been averred that the complainant should have approached the Civil Court under the Specific Relief Act and that the complaint should be dismissed. There was a separate written statement filed by Sher Jang Singh respondent No. 5 through Shri Kanwaljit Singh Bawa, Advocate wherein a few technical objections were taken such as that the complainant is not a consumer etc., yet it has been specifically averred that this respondent never refused to execute the affidavit in favour of the complainant regarding non-cancellation of General Power of Attorney and that he was still ready to execute necessary affidavits., yet the fact that he has transferred all his rights in respect of complainant through legally enforceable General Power of Attorney has been admitted. This has also been averred that all original documents regarding the transfer of the plot in favour of the complainant were provided.

The General Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant was executed on 19.7.1994 and it was registered the same day at the office of Sub-Registrar, Chandigarh. Sher Jang Singh has admitted its execution in his reply filed here on 2.2.1998. On behalf of the complainant it has been stressed that once a registered Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant has been executed and its execution admitted, the respondents were bound to transfer the industrial plot in favour of the complainant. This proposition has been opposed on behalf of the respondents. On our request the learned Counsel for the complainant has placed on record photocopy of the allotment letter. A perusal thereof shows that the industrial plot in question was allotted to Sher Jang Singh vide letter No. 27325 dated 13.2.1992. However, relevant Clause XII thereof is reproduced as under : "(XII) Ordinarily you shall not be allowed to transfer your rights in the plot for a period of 10 years from the date of allotment. Transfer may, however, be permitted in exceptional circumstances on payment of transfer fee as prescribed by the Corporation under its transfer policy, from time to time."

SINCE the plot was allotted on Lease Hold basis on 13.2.1992, it shall be for the respondents to take a decision regarding its transfer before the expiry of the stipulated period of 10 years. The plot was originally allotted for setting up an industrial unit for production of sanitary fitting machines. It is mainly the function of the respondents to ascertain whether various conditions contained in the letter of allotment have been transferred or not. Besides this the industrial plot was allotted to Sher Jang and privity regarding lease was between respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on one hand and Sher Jang Singh on the other hand. It is doubtful, if the present complainants can be deemed to be ''Consumer''. The conclusion is that maintainability is doubtful. The complaint is hereby rejected. There is no order as to costs. Complaint rejected. ______________