SHANTI DEVI vs Ghaziabad Development Authority

THIS revision is directed against the order dated 9.6.2000 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow allowing the appeal against the order dated 7.5.1997 of District Forum whereby respondent/opposite party was directed to sanction building plan and pay Rs. 1,000/- by way of compensation to the petitioners/complainants.

FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. After purchase of plot No. 11, Ram Nagar, Ghaziabad, the petitioners got prepared a building plan and submitted it with the respondent on 27.12.1993 with requisite fee for grant of sanction to raise construction on the plot. However, the respondent did not sanction the building plan. Petitioners filed a complaint before the District Forum which came to be disposed of in the manner noticed above. Appeal taken by the respondent against District Forum''s order was, allowed by the State Commission. Relying on the decisions in Paresh Nath Baksi & Anr. v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation, III (1994) CPJ 125 (NC), and Hiralal v. The Administrator, Municipal Council, Bhilwara & Ors., 1986-94 National Commission and SC on Consumer Cases 1008 (NS), preliminary objection raised by Mr. S. Kulshreshtha for respondent was that the dispute raised in complaint is not a consumer dispute and, the order under challenge, thus, does not warrant any interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In Paresh Nath Baksi''s case (supra), dispute between the parties pertained to renewal of building plan and with reference to provisions of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1951, it was held in para No. 10 of the report (at page 128) "Chapter XXII of the said Act contains Sections 376 to 392 which confer power on the Municipal Corporation to regulate the use of premises situated within the Corporation limits for the erection of new buildings or for effecting alterations of existing buildings as also for sanctioning change of use, user of buildings etc. From a perusal of these provisions it becomes manifest that these powers have been conferred by the Legislature on the Corporation in public interest and are expected to be exercised by it only for the purpose of regulating building activity within the local limits of the Municipal Corporation with a view to ensure orderly growth of new buildings in a manner consistent with the requirements of safety, health, hygiene, sanitation and the street alignment or building lines of a public street specified under Section 63 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 in conformity with the City Improvement and Development Plan so as to prevent haphazard growth of structures. These regulations are enforced by the Corporation by system of regulation of building activity by a process of grant or refusal of building sanction. We have no doubt in our minds that in exercising this power of regulation of building activity, the Corporation is only discharging its statutory function under the Act and it is not performing a ''service'' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act as quid pro quo for the consideration consisting of the fee charged by it on the application for sanction. In our opinion the fee paid for the building sanction is not by way of consideration for service but it is only a statutory levy for meeting the expenses of administration and enforcement of the regulatory machinery set up under statutory provisions and rules governing the regulation of building construction activity in the larger public interest. The approach made by the complainants seeking relief from this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act is, therefore, manifestly misconceived and the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable under the Act. The Municipal Corporation is not performing any service which has been hired for consideration by the applicants for the building sanction."

In Hiralal''s case (supra), the complainant submitted a building plan and the opposite parties failed to return it and prevented the complainant to start construction work. Against the order of dismissal of complaint filed by the complainant by State Commission, the appeal was dismissed by this Commission holding that the dispute raised in complaint was not a consumer dispute. This case was rendered with reference to Section 170 of the Rajasthan Municipal Act, 1959 and the Building Bye-laws framed thereunder.

APPLYING the ratio of both the said decisions, we are inclined to accept the aforementioned objection and accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.