1. The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), filed by Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Housing Board”) and its Deputy Housing Commissioner, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint under the Act, is directed against the Order dated 28.10.2014, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 1381 of 2009.  By the impugned Order, while affirming the Order dated 21.08.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 135/2008 (173/2006 Second), the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Housing Board.

2. Vide Order dated 21.08.2009, the District Forum had allowed the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, and directed the Housing Board to allot to the Complainant an HIG house under its Mansarovar Yojana, according to the size and cost prescribed under the Self-Financing Scheme, 2005 (First Part), within three months.  The District Forum had also directed the Housing Board to pay to the Complainant sums of ₹3,000/- and ₹1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation costs respectively.

3. The brief facts of the case are that by depositing the registration amount of ₹10,000/- on 18.11.1987 the father of the Complainant had applied for allotment of an HIG house under the ‘Kalptaru Scheme – 1987’ floated by the Housing Board.  On request, the said registration was transferred by the Housing Board in the name of the Complainant, vide their Office Order dated 06.03.1996.  As against the said registration, instalments of ₹62,110/- were deposited by the Complainant.  When the Housing Board launched its Mansarovar Scheme at Jaipur for allotment of houses to the registered applicants under the Self-Financing Scheme, 2005 (First Part), the Complainant, who was already registered under the Kalptaru Scheme, 1987, applied in the new Scheme and also deposited an amount of ₹1,00,000/- with the Housing Board on 14.03.2005.  As per the schedule given in the said Scheme, the last date(s) for receiving the applications was 16.03.2005, for publication of temporary list of the eligible candidates was 31.03.2005, for receiving the objections was 04.04.2005, for publication of permanent list of the eligible candidates was 11.04.2005, and draw was to be held on 19.04.2005.  In the temporary list published by the Housing Board, the name of the Complainant figured at Sl.No.2, but without any prior intimation and opportunity of personal hearing, his name was removed from the said list.  Thereafter, in order to give undue benefit to the ineligible applicants, the second temporary list was published by the Housing Board on 02.01.2006; objections were invited till 04.01.2006; and on 07.01.2006 complete list was published.  As regards removal of his name from the list, the Complainant had already sent a letter to the Housing Board on 05.12.2005, which letter was not responded to by the Housing Board and after publication of the second temporary list, proper time was also not given to him to take any further action in the matter.

4. In the said background, alleging gross negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the Petitioners in: (i) removing the name of the Complainant from the list of the eligible candidates without any prior intimation and personal hearing; (ii) not responding to the letters dated 05.12.2005 and 19.01.2006, written by the Complainant to the Housing Board; (iii) after publication of the second temporary list, not providing the Complainant proper time to furnish his objections; (iv) considering the applicants of the year 1979, who had registered themselves for allotment of MIG houses, eligible under the new Scheme for allotment of HIG houses; (v) not considering the case of the Complainant, who had registered himself for allotment of an HIG house; (vi) not taking into consideration the fact that the Complainant was the senior most applicant in the year wise seniority list, according to the Takshak Self-Financing Scheme, 2005, launched by the Housing Board, which Scheme in Point No.4.6 provided that the earlier registered applicant can give an option of one income group above from his present income group but at the time of determining the year wise seniority, preference would be given to the original applicant, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum.  In the Complaint, the Complainant had prayed for a direction to the Housing Board to allot him an HIG house under the SFS, 2005 (First Part) at Mansarovar, Jaipur, according to the size and cost stated in the said Scheme and pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the amounts deposited by him.  Further, compensation of ₹5,00,000/- as also litigation costs of ₹11,000/- were also prayed for by the Complainant.
5. Upon notice, by filing its Written Version, the Housing Board contested the Complaint on different grounds, including the limitation.  It was contended on its behalf that the Complaint was filed with extreme delay, for which no grounds were cited by the Complainant, and the District Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint, involving the issue related to cost.  Further, coming to the merits of the Complaint, while admitting that by paying a total sum of ₹62,160/-, the father of the Complainant had registered himself under the Kalpatru Scheme, 1987, launched by the Housing Board for allotment of HIG houses in Jaipur City and the said registration was transferred in favour of the Complainant, it was contended on its behalf that on the basis of the said registration, the Complainant had applied for allotment of an HIG house in Mansarovar Scheme and had also deposited a sum of ₹1,00,000/- with the Housing Board on 14.03.2005.  On scrutiny of the applications received, the temporary list of eligible applicants was published on 02.04.2005, on the basis of which the applicants registered before 1979 raised objections, with a request for inclusion of their name in the list of eligible candidates.  Eventually, on 02.01.2006 the list of temporary eligible applicants under the Self-Financing Scheme, 2005, Part-First, Mansarovar, Jaipur, was again published and objections were invited till 04.01.2006.  The Complainant did not file any objections to the same.  Accordingly, on 07.01.2006, list of permanent eligible applicants was published, which is appropriate, reasonable and in accordance with Rule/Point No.4.1 of the application/brochure.  While preparing the said list, the aspects related to year-wise and number-wise seniority of the already registered applicants as also reservation quota, were looked into by the Housing Board and then the applicants registered prior to the year 1979, who were senior to the Complainant as he had registered himself in the year 1987, were included in the said list. The applicants, who had registered themselves for allotment of MIG houses before 1979, had submitted their application under Rule 4.5 for allotment of HIG house and not for change of income-group.  As regards not providing any personal hearing, it was averred that the Complainant was provided complete information relating to the Rules through correspondence and personally on his appearance after publication of list of eligible applicants on 07.01.2006.  On receipt of letter dated 19.01.2006 from the Complainant, complete information as to the eligible applicants, as published under the Scheme, was made available to him, after which he sent another letter dated 27.01.2006, requesting for copy of the list published, for which he had also deposited a sum of ₹15/- with the Housing Board. For responding to the legal notice dated 28.01.2006, got issued by the Complainant, sufficient time was not afforded to the Housing Board to reply the said notice, inasmuch as it was sought within one day, after which the Complaint was filed.  In view of the afore-stated scenario, the Complaint was liable to be dismissed.
6. On analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, as noted above, the District Forum allowed the Complaint and issued the afore-noted directions to the Housing Board.  For ready reference, the relevant paras of Order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the District Forum are translated as under:-

“Opposite Party took out Mansarover Scheme, Jaipur for allotment of houses to the applicants, which was taken out under self-financing scheme, 2005 (First part) High Income Group and Middle Income Group “A”. Complainant was a registered application of H.I.G. Category in formerly Kalpatru Scheme, 1987, therefore, he has deposited ₹1,00,000/- through Banker’s Cheque dated.14.03.2005.

According to booklet, the temporary list of eligible applicants was to be published on 31.03.2005, but the Opp. Party published the above list excessively late on 02.04.2005. Name of complainant was mentioned at SL. No. 2 in that list. Opposite parties, in order to provide undue benefit to ineligible applicants, published second temporary list on 02.01.2006, and having sought objection till 04.01.2006, published permanent list on 07.01.2006, in which name of complainant was removed.

The list which the Opposite party published on 02.04.2005 was cancelled and there was no concrete ground for publishing second temporary list on 02.01.2006. They have only told that second list was published by including peoples form different category on the behest of senior officials. Above act of Opp. Party was arbitrary and contrary to the rules prescribed in booklet. Second Temporary list was published on 02.01.2006. Objection were sought on the above list till 04.01.2006 and thereafter permanent list was published on 07.01.2006. Only two day’s time was provided for presenting objection and immediately after 3 days permanent list was published in hurry. Publishing second list in hurry shows that Opp. Party allotted house to those people, who have received registration after the complainant. Sufficient opportunity for hearing was not afforded to the complainant and temporary list, in which name of complainant was mentioned at SL. No.2 was cancelled and another list was published in which name of complainant was removed. In this way, the complainant despite being eligible for allotment of house was deprived o allotment, which is a kind of deficiency in service on the party of Opp. Parties.

Opp. Party has published second list by including the names of applicants who have applied in the year 1979 for M.I.G. Group “B”, who were held to be eligible. The applicants of M.I.G. B have got changed their category, but they have not deposited the difference amount, whereas, according to Rule 2.8.2 of Amended procedure, 1981 for registration and allotment of houses of the Opp. Party it was necessary for them to deposit registration amount for the purpose of change in income group. The changed option would have come into effect only after depositing above amount.

The people who have got their category changed, the calculation of their seniority was to made from that date, on which date they have got their category changed. Complainant has got himself registered in H.I.G. Group in the year 1987 and got deposited entire payable amounts. Complainant was the senior most of the people who got their category changed, yet the name of complainant was removed from the list.

Opp. Party has taken out Takshak Self financing Scheme, 2005, in the booklet of which it is mentioned at point No.4.6 that earlier registered applicants can opt for an income group just above or just below their present income group, but at the time of determining category-wise list the original applicants shall be given preference as per the year of registration. The Opp. Parties have adopted different standards in different schemes in an arbitrary manner. Complainant is the original applicant of H.I.G. Group registered in the year 1987. He is senior to the applicants of M.I.G. B category registered in the year 1979, who have later on changed their category into H.I.G. in the year 2005. Opp. Party having not included the name of complainant who is the original applicants on the basis of year-wise seniority has committed deficiency in providing service. They have removed the name of complainant from the temporary list published on 02.04.2005 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the complainant.

Complainant has got himself registered in Kalpatru Scheme, 1987. It was mentioned in the booklet issued for Kalpatru Scheme that house shall be definitely provided in ten years.

Complainant has got deposited installments on regular basis but above scheme had failed. Complainant has not been provided house from 1987 till now i.e. nearly after 22 years.

Opp. Party having jumped the seniority of complainant for the year 1987, has allotted houses to Munna Devi, Naveen Gulati, Devesh, Jagdish, Laxminaryan, S.K. Jagwani, Girish Kumar Jain etc, who have got their category changed in the year 2005, before the applicant, in this way they have committed deficiency in providing service.

Therefore, this application of complainant is liable to be allowed. H.I.G. category house are lying vacant with the Opp. Party.”

7. Aggrieved with the Order passed by the District Forum, the Opposite Party Housing Board preferred an Appeal before the State Commission, which affirmed the Order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal vide Impugned Order dated 28.10.2014.  For ready reference, English translation of the relevant para of the Impugned Order dated 28.10.2014 is reproduced as under:-

“It has been the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the Lower Income Group has right to give option for a group just higher to it as per Point No.4.1 of self Financing Scheme, 2005. Therefore, having cancelled earlier list they have not committed any error, but he has not adduced the Rules of Self –Financing Scheme, 2005 with the reply.

Self-Financing Scheme, 2005 was adduced on behalf of Complainant in form of Annexure 8, which was not denied by the Opposite party in their reply. Point No.4.6 in the above Rules is reproduced below:

“Before applying in Takshak Self Financing Scheme, 2005, a registered applicant may give an option just higher to his income group, but the original applicant shall be provided reference in the year-wise seniority lit at the time of determination of income group-wise list.”

From above, it is clear that the applicants who were from Middle Income group, were free to give option of High Income Group, but still the seniority of the complainant remains at the top since 1987 and there was no ground to cancel the first list which was published on 02.04.2005, because name of complainant was at Sl. No.2 and he was of the year 1987 in respect to seniority, and he was below in the seniority in remaining lists. Beside this, no notice was served upon him, temporary list was issued without affording him an opportunity of hearing, as per which the people appearing in that list having held to be seniors were allotted houses. Only two days’ time was provided without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing, which is unfair trade practice. Permanent list was published on the next day. At the time of registration of complainant, it was mentioned in form of First clause that house shall be definitely made available to him within 10 years. In this situation order of Forum is not erroneous in any manner with respect to facts, evidence or law, and we deem it necessary not to interfere in the above order. Appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed.”

8. Being aggrieved, challenging the Impugned Order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner Housing Board has filed the present Revision Petitions before this Commission.
9. Mr. Ankit Acharya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Housing Board, submitted that State Commission had wrongly applied the rules of the Takshak Scheme, which was inapplicable in this case as the Complainant was not an applicant in Takshak Scheme.  The State Commission failed to appreciate that the Complainant has not raised any objection to the list issued by them on 02.01.2006. The Housing Board has allotted houses to all the applicants who had applied in 1973, 1979 and 1982 scheme and thus all these applicants had seniority over the Respondent/Complainant in terms of the rules of SFS-2005(Part-1).  The District Forum had no jurisdiction to pass any order directing the Petitioner Board to allot the house on the rates prevailing in 2005 since the same was related to costing principles.   It was prayed that the Impugned Order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the State Commission should be set aside and the Revision Petition be allowed in terms of the prayer clause.
10. Per contra, Mr. Devendra Mohan Mathur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant/Respondent herein, relying on the judgment passed by the Hon’le Supreme Court in ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.’ [reported in II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC)] submitted that the revisioal jurisdiction of this Commission is very limited.  He supported the Impugned Order 28.10.2024 passed by the State Commission as according to him the State Commission has passed a well-reasoned order which is based on a correct and rightful appreciation of evidence and material available on record and does not call for any interference.
11. We have heard Mr. Ankit Acharya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party/Petitioner Housing Board, Mr. Devendra Mohan Mathur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainants/Respondent, perused the material available on record and have given a thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by them.
12. The submissions made by Mr. Ankit Acharya, learned Counsel for the Petitioner Housing Board, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there is concurrent finding of both the lower fora that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner Housing Board while allotting the houses to the Applicants who were junior to the respondent / Complainant in seniority list.  While passing the Impugned Order dated 28.10.2014, the State Commission had considered all the material evidence on record and we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission.  Further, there is no misreading of any evidence material on record and all the material in evidence which was placed before the State Commission has been considered.  It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] that the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission.  For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [supra]  is reproduced as under:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

13. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ (supra), we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Order passed by the State Commission.  Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs.