Haryana

Panchkula

CC/271/2014

JAI PARKASH BHARGAVE. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA. - Opp.Party(s)

ISHAN BHARDWAJ.

14 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	271 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	29.12.2014
Date of Decision	:	14.05.2015

Jai Parkash Bhargave s/o Sh.Rameshwar, R/o House No.3024/1, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       The Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula (Haryana).

2.       The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Haryana, Finance and Planning Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

                                                                         ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Ishaan Bhardwaj, Adv., for the complainant.  

                             Mr.Ravinder Kaushik, Adv., for the Op No.1.

                             Op No.2 already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complaint has been filed by the complainant-Jai Parkash under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that he is a retired Govt. employee and the OP No.1 invited applications for the allotment of residential plot in various Urban Estates of Haryana State including Sector-25, Panchkula for the employees of Haryana Govt./Boards/ Corporations and State Co-operative Bank which was commenced from 25.05.1993 and closed on 02.07.1993 (Annexure CV-1). The complainant had applied for 8 marla plot in Sector-25, Panchkula and deposited a sum of Rs.14,337/- as earnest money vide receipt No.000969 (Annexure C-2) dated 29.07.1993 through Bank of Baroda, Panchkula which was acknowledged by the Op No.1. The complainant was successful in draw of lots and allotted a plot No.945, Sector-25, Panchkula. As per condition No.10 (iii) of the advertisement/brochure, the successful candidates were supposed to submit integrity certificate within a period of 90 days from the date of demand notice by the respective Heads of Department. The complainant received a letter issued by the E.O., HUDA, Panchkula vide memo No.11920-99 (Annexure C-3) dated 29.07.1994 mentioning therein to submit integrity certificate within 90 days from the issuance of letter failing which the allotment of said plot would be cancelled. After receiving the intimation, the complainant submitted an application to Op No.2 alongwith a copy of letter issued by the Op No.1 but the Op No.2 did not take any action. Thereafter, the complainant another application vide receipt No.38469/98309664 dated 18.10.1994 sent to the Op No.2 as well as Op No.1 but no intimation was received to the complainant from the Op No.2 and the complainant served legal notice on 02.11.1994 (Annexure C-5 but no date has been mentioned) through his counsel asking Op No.2 for the grant of integrity certificate. But the Op No.2 did not issue the integrity certificate, therefore, the OP No.1 did not issue any allotment letter to the complainant. The complainant, has no other option/alternative, has filed civil writ petition No.13555 of 1997 before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh which was dismissed on 02.03.1998 (Annexure C-6) on the ground that the petitioner had been found guilty of suppressing the fact relating to registration of criminal case against him under the prevention of corruption Act bearing FIR No.90 dated 08.06.1994. It is submitted that the fact of the registration of criminal case against the complainant was nowhere relevant to mention in that petition and it was prayed before the Hon’ble Bench to direct the concerned department to issue the integrity certificate to complainant upto the year of 1993. As per condition No.10 (iii) of Brochure, there should be no adverse entry regarding integrity in the record of applicant for the last ten years or less, depending upon the service tenure. The integrity certificate was to be issued upto year 1993 but not beyond the years after that when the said criminal case was registered against the complainant in the year 1994. In case which was registered against the complainant alongwith one Surinder Kumar Gupta u/s 7 & 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 bearing FIR No.90 dated 08.06.1994, the complainant alongwith co-accused were acquitted in CRA No.1142-SB of 2003 (O & M) on 18.11.2013 (Annexure C-7). Now even in State of Haryana, filing of integrity certificate has also been exempted vide instructions issued in the year 2001, so there is no need for the issuance of integrity certificate as per the aforesaid instructions, therefore, the complainant is entitled for the allotment of plot against which he had already deposited the earnest money and was successful in draw of lots. On 30.04.2014, the complainant sent a letter to the E.O., HUDA, Panchkula regarding issuance of allotment letter of plot No.945, Sector-25, Panchkula wherein it was mentioned that the condition of submission of integrity certificate has been withdrawn by HUDA in the year 2001 but to no avail. The complainant sent reminders on 21.06.2014, 15.07.2014 and 28.07.2014 but in vain. The complainant sent a legal notice through his counsel on 20.08.2014. The complainant also sent an application through RTI Act for seeking information which was supplied to him after passing of 70 days. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant applied under GSRQ category for allotment of 8 marla plot in Sector-25, Panchkula vide application form No.000969 dated 29.07.1993 and was successful in draw of lots. It is submitted that the complainant was informed vide letter No.11920-99 dated 29.07.1994 that the complainant had remained successful in draw of lots and requested to submit the integrity certificate according to condition No.10 (iii) of the brochure within 90 days from the issuance of letter failing which the allotment of plot should stand cancelled. In reference to letter dated 29.07.1994, the Director, Treasuries & Accounts and Joint Secy to Govt., Haryana, Finance Department vide office letter No.22034-TA-HR (4T)/95/1193 dated 27.01.1995 informed that in the ACR for the year 1988-89 of the complainant, integrity has been mentioned doubtful and his representation against adverse remarks as well as integrity was rejected. It is submitted that the complainant filed CWP No.13595 of 1997 dated 08.09.1997 i.e. after lapse of 3 years from the date of issue of letter to him to submit the integrity certificate which was dismissed on 02.03.1998. It is submitted that the present complaint filed by the complainant is neither maintainable nor in time and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain it. It is submitted that as per condition of the brochure/advertisement submission of integrity certificate was a mandatory requirement which was required to be submitted within 90 days from the date of issuance of letter but the certificate was not submitted in time. It is submitted that the present complaint is time barred as it was filed beyond the limit of 2 years. It is submitted that there was no allotment and no allotment letter was issued to the complainant but an application which was considered and condition ante to the allotment was not complied with. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The authorized representative-Shabir Ahemad for the Op No.2 appeared on 05.02.2015. On 20.02.2015, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.2 and the case was adjourned to 05.03.2015 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 05.03.2015, again there was no appearance on behalf of the OP No.2 and no written statement has been filed. However, the Op No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 05.03.2015.
4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the Op No.1 has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1/1 and closed the evidence.
5. Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for Ops reiterated the averments made in the written statement and prayed for its dismissal.
6. After hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties and going through the material available on the case file which transpires that the present complaint is barred by limitation. Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant was allotted the plot in the year 1994 and he was asked to submit the integrity certificate within 90 days by the respective Heads of Department vide application dated 29.07.1994. The complainant being a Govt. employee applied for integrity certificate with OP No.2 but because of involvement in a criminal case, the OP No.2 did not issue the integrity certificate in favour of the complainant. The complainant filed CWP before the Hon’ble High Court in the year 1997 i.e. after 3 years from the date of issue of letter which was dismissed on 02.03.1998. The complainant was also found guilty and acquitted in CRA No.1142-SB of 2003 (O & M) on 18.11.2013 (Annexure C-7). From the above, it is clear the present complaint is time barred as the cause of action had arisen in the year 1994 when the complainant was allotted plot but the present complaint has been filed on 29.12.2014 i.e. after 10 years after expiry of two years of limitation. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act is as under:-

“24-A. Limitation period-(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(20    Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.

          Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

7. In view of the above discussion and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the case law Kandimalla Rahavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) we are of the considered view that the complaint is time barred and it deserves to be dismissed. Hence, we dismiss the complaint and the parties shall bear their own costs.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to records after due compliance.

 

 

Announced                     (Anita Kapoor)          (Dharam Pal)

14.05.2015                     Member                      President

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.           

                                            

                                                          Dharam Pal                                                                                                President