JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      The petitioner-board promulgated a scheme for registration of residential houses known as Vishisht Panjikaran Yojana-2009. The Scheme provided for registration under economically weaker group, lower income group and middle income group. The persons having annual income from Rs.87,601/- to Rs.1,20,000/- in the year 2008-09 were eligible for registration under the Middle Income Group. The complainant applied for registration under the Middle Income Group and along with the application form he submitted an affidavit stating therein that his total income in the financial year 2008-09 was Rs.1,19,856/-. Thus, as per the income disclosed in the affidavit he was eligible for registration under Middle Income Group. However, instead of enclosing the salary certificate of the financial year 2008-09, the complainant enclosed the salary certificate of July 2009. In July 2009 his gross salary was Rs.10,815/-.

2.      In a draw of lots, house No.9/689 was allotted to the complainant on 15-10-2009. However, no allotment letter was issued to him. When he made an inquiry in this regard he was informed that the allotment had been cancelled since his income was higher than the limit prescribed for allotment in Middle Income Group. Being aggrieved from the cancellation of the allotment he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking setting aside of the order whereby his allotment was cancelled and payment of compensation amounting to Rs.30,000/- and cost of litigation amounting to Rs.5,000/-.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner-board on the ground that since as per the salary certificate for the month of July 2009 the income of the complainant was Rs.10,815/- per month he was not eligible for registration and allotment under the Middle Income Group.

4.      The District Forum vide its order dated 23-03-2012 directed the petitioner-board to refund a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant along with interest on that amount at the rate of 9% per annum. The petitioner-board was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. The District Forum, thus, declined to set aside the order whereby the allotment made to the complainant was cancelled.

5.      Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the petitioner as well as the complainant preferred separate appeals before the State Commission. Vide impugned order dated 08-07-2014, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-board. The order whereby the allotment made to the complainant had been cancelled by the petitioner-board was quashed and set aside by the State Commission. The petitioner-board was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation and cost of proceedings. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of its appeal and allowing the appeal filed by the complainant the petitioner-board is before us by way of these revision petitions.

6.      It is not in dispute that a person having income of not more than Rs.1,20,000/- in the financial year 2008-09 was eligible for registration under the Middle Income Group. It is also not in dispute that in terms of the income disclosed in his affidavit the complainant was eligible for registration under the said group. However, the complainant committed a mistake by annexing the salary slip of July 2009 instead of annexing the salary slip of the financial year 2008-09. If submission of the salary slip along with application for registration was a pre-requisite condition for the purpose of registration the petitioner-board instead of making an allotment to the complainant could at best have rejected his application at the very threshold. However, that was not done and the petitioner-board allotted a residential accommodation to the complainant. In our opinion, instead of straightway cancelling the allotment, relying upon the salary slip of July 2009, the petitioner-board ought to have given an opportunity to the complainant to submit documentary proof of his income in the year 2008-09. Such documentary proof could be the salary slip of the year 2008-09 or a certificate from the employer of the complainant, giving breakup of his salary in the aforesaid financial year. No such opportunity, however, was given to the complainant.

7.      Admittedly, there was no material available even to the petitioner-board, to show that the income of the complainant in the financial year 2008-09 was more than Rs.1,20,000/-. In the absence of such a material it was not open to the petitioner-board to take a view that the income of the complainant in the year 2008-09 was more than Rs.1,20,000/- and cancel the allotment accordingly.

8.      We find from the order of the State Commission that later, the complainant had vide application dated 02-02-2010 submitted to the petitioner-board a copy of his salary certificate for the financial year 2008-09. The said application was exhibit-4 whereas the salary certificate for the financial year 2008-09 was exhibit-5. As per the said salary certificate the income of the complainant in the year 2008-09 was Rs.1,16,536/-. Considering the eligibility criteria notified by the petitioner-board, a person having annual income of Rs.1,16,536/- was certainly eligible for registration under middle income group. It is unfortunate that despite the complainant having submitted documentary proof of his income in the year 2008-09, the petitioner-board did not revoke the order dated             03-02-2010 whereby the allotment made to the complainant had been cancelled by it.

9.      The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the scheme did not permit a registrant to rectify the mistake committed by him and, therefore, the cancellation of the allotment was justified. We, however, cannot accept the said contention. The income disclosed by the complainant in the affidavit was within the income range notified by the petitioner-board for registration under the middle income group and the salary certificate was required only to prove the said statement made in the affidavit of the complainant. Therefore, instead of penalizing the complainant, the petitioner-board ought to have acted upon the salary slip which the complainant later submitted to the board and ought to have recalled the order whereby the allotment was cancelled.

10.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the revision petition is absolutely frivolous and devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed with cost assessed at Rs.25,000/- to be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid A/c-NCDRC within four weeks from today.