Haryana

Karnal

MA/2/2023

Parveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Abhinav Mehta, Haryana Sehri Vikas Paradhikaran - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Dogra

11 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                Misc. application No. 02 of 2023

                                                Date of instt.08.02.2023

                                                Date of Decision: 11.12.2023

 

 

Parveen Kumar son of Shri Karam Singh, resident of H.No.783, Chand Sarai, Karnal, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                               …….Applicant/Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

 

1.     Abhinav Mehta, Estate Officer, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Sector-12, Karnal.

2.     The Chief Administrator, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Plot No.C-3, HUDA Complex, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

                                                                      …..Contemnors/OPs

 

Application U/s 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for implementing the order dated 06.01.2022, passed by Hon’ble DCDRC, Karnal, and further initiating legal proceedings in accordance with law, thereby sending the contemnors/OPs in the imprisonment for violating the order dated 18.04.2022, passed by this Hon’ble Commission.

 

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh…..….Member

 

Present:  Shri Vinod Dogra, counsel for Applicant.

                Shri R.R.Sharma, counsel for OPs  

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:  

 

                Vide this order we dispose of the application U/s 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.             Brief facts of the application are that applicant/complainant had filed a complaint titled as Parveen Kumar Versus Estate Officer, and before this Commission with the averments that the OPs decided to sell one booth, Sector-5, Karnal, through e-auction on 25.02.2022 and the complainant also decided to purchase one booth bearing situated at Sector-5, Karnal, for the purpose of establishing his business for earning the livelihood for himself as well as for his family. The applicant deposited the requisite amount as desired by the respondent. On 18.04.2022, this Hon’ble Commission passed an order whereby restraining the contemnors/OPs not to cancel the allotment in the name of complainant till further orders on the ground of non-deposition of additional amount of Rs.22830/-. There is utter surprise on the part of applicant/complainant that above said contemnors have refunded back the amount of Rs.50900 and Rs.2,79,870/- on dated 03.02.2023 in the account of applicant through NEFT, whereas the applicant is entitled for allotment of Booth, situated at Sector-5, Karnal, at the settled price i.e. highest bid price being highest bidder. Hence, the present application. 

3.             On notice, contemnors appeared and filed reply raising preliminary objections regarding locus standi; concealment of true and material facts; misuse of process of law; bad of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, etc. On merits, it is submitted matter qua the base price of the property in question Rs.10,17,700/- is a matter of record, but reserve price has to be decided by the committee constituted for the purpose as per terms and conditions for e-auction as agreed by the applicant-complainant and as per the terms and conditions of e-auction as agreed by the applicant complainant and as per the terms and conditions of e-auction all the intended bidders were required to deposit EMD. It is further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the auction the successful bidder was required to deposit an amount to 10% of the bid amount. At the time of participation in the e-auction all the intending bidders were required to go through the detailed terms and conditions i.e. brochure containing detailed terms and conditions of the e-auction of the residential/institutional/commercial properties/ building/ sites on as is where is basis and in pursuance thereof the applicant agreed to abide by the said terms and conditions and only thereafter the applicant-complainant was allowed to participate in the e-auction proceedings. Since the applicant-complainant has only participated in the e-auction and was the highest bidder, but the bid amount was below the reserve price fixed by the competent authority and as such, no allotment of Booth in question was ever issued in the name of the applicant till date and the OPs have not cancelled the alleged allotment, hence, there is no question of violating the order of this Commission. Hence, prayed for dismissal of application.

4.             Learned counsel for applicant/complainant argued that the contemnors/OPs despite the direction issued by this Commission not to allot the Booth in question to any other person, vide order dated 18.04.2022, the contemnors did not comply the order passed by this Commission. Hence, legal action may be taken against the OPs/contemnors. 

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for contemnors/OPs argued that at the time of participation in the e-auction all the intending bidders were required to go through the detailed terms and conditions. Since the applicant-complainant has only participated in the e-auction and was the highest bidder, but the bid amount was below the reserve price fixed by the competent authority and as such, no allotment of Booth in question was ever issued in the name of the applicant till date and the OPs have not cancelled the alleged allotment, hence, there is no question of violating the order of this Commission. Hence, prayed for dismissal of application.

6.             Arguments heard. Record perused.

7.             The present application has arisen out of complaint, which has already been dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2023 and in that complaint, this Commission has passed the following order:-

Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

8.             Since, the complaint arising out of the present application has already been dismissed, therefore, the present application has become infructuous. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.    

Announced

Dated: 11.12.2023                                                                  

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

       

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Suman Singh)

                     Member                         Member