PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the parties present. There is a delay of 79 days in filing this revision petition. The delay has been explained in para No. 3 of the application for condonation of delay, which runs as follows:- “3. That the statutory period of appeal expired on 14.01.2012 i.e. 30 days of the order of the Hon’ble State Commission. However, appellant was physically un-well during the period up to the first week of March 2012 and could not look into his case and that only after getting well and after having obtained the certified copy of the case from Ld. District Forum and State Commission that he engaged the services of a counsel Mr. Yashwardan Tiwari on the suggestion of a family friend. That he sent all his documents to the counsel for filing his appeal before the Hon’ble National Commission on 15.03.2012.” 2. No medical certificate has been filed. This application is dated 29.06.2012 and now the counsel for the petitioner submits that he will get the medical certificate. It clearly goes to show that he wants to create new evidence. No sufficient ground has been given for condonation of delay, but since there is a small delay and in the interest of justice, we condone the same subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs, which will be deposited with the Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority, within 45 days, otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% per annum. 3. Now let us turn to the merits of this case. Sh. A.R. Ramesh, the complainant, Ex-serviceman applied for a site measuring 40X60’ with the Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority- OP. His membership was accepted. He paid Rs. 5,000/-. He was ready to pay the remaining payment for the said site. The complainant, vide his letter dated 02.06.1999 intimated the OP through the Chairman of the MUDA that he had changed his address. Thereafter, notices were sent at his old address. He did not receive any notice at his new address. The respondent/OP cancelled his membership. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner approached the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 19.11.2010, dismissed the complaint. The complainant again filed First Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission also dismissed the first appeal vide its order dated 14.12.2011. Now the present revision petition has been filed. 4. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the respondent/OP submits that the notice for change of address should have been addressed to the Commissioner and not to the Chairman, MUDA. He further submits that both the Fora below have given the findings in favour of the respondent/OP. The counsel for the respondent also points out that the complainant had admitted in his letter that he had already settled in Bangalore in the year 1999. It is 150 kms away from Mysore. 5. We are not impressed by the arguments canvassed by the counsel for the respondent/OP. It is clear that the findings given by the Fora below are not tenable. There is no inkling on the record that the notice was served upon the petitioner at his new address. It is also clear that the Commissioner and the Chairman, MUDA belong to the same office. It was not denied that the Chairman had received the said letter. He should have transferred this letter to the Commissioner. The fault, if any, lies only with the respondent/OP. They cannot avoid giving the site to the petitioner on such like lame excuses. The first and foremost duty of the public authority is to serve the people without bias and arbitrariness. All the claims must be strictly determined by the canons of fair play and justice. The duty of complainant comes to an end when he apprised the O.P. of his new address. 6. Counsel for the complainant has also cited two authorities in favour of his case. First is reported in the case of “Radha Krishana Gupta Versus D.D.A.” decided on April 30, 2007 and another judgment in the case of “V.N. Bharat Vs. D.D.A. & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 1373 of 2006, wherein it was held that it is mandatory to serve the notice on the changed address. The view taken by the Fora below is not sustainable. Consumer Fora has to reckon with reality. The Revision petition is allowed. The orders passed by the Fora below are set aside and respondent/OP is directed to re-allot the plot after receiving the remaining amount as per the rates prevalent during those days. Notice be sent to the complainant by the Opposite Party, within 45 days after the receipt of this order. After the receipt of residue amount, the premises be handed over to the complainant within 45 days. In default, the entire amount paid by the petitioner/complainant will carry interest @ 9% p.a., till he gets the possession of plot. |
