RESERVED
Before State Consumer Redressal Commission, U.P. Lucknow
Appeal No. 1624 of 2009
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority
169, Sector-Gamma
GautamBuddh Nagar
Through its chief executive officer
....... Appellants
Versus
Ishan educational research society
1798/852, Hardhyan Singh Road
Karol Bagh New Delhi (through its chairman Shri D K Garg)
....... Respondents.
Before :
Shri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member
Shri Vikas Saksena, Member
On behalf of Appellants - Shri Rajesh Chaddha, Advocate
On behalf of respondents - none present
Per Sri Vikas Saxena, Member –
This Appeal has been submitted against the impugnedjudgement and order dated 30.07. 2009, passed by District Consumer Redressal Commission GautamBuddh Nagar in complaint number 348 /2007. By the impugned order the learned Commission directed the authority /the Appellants to provide an interest @ 10% from March 2004 till date of possession of flats in question to the respondents ad also damages for Rs. 60,000/- as well as costs of the Complaint and other reliefs regarding interest.
It is stated in the complaint that the complainants/respondants applied for allotment of Six Flats in there scheme number code - BHS - 0 5. It is also stated by the complainant that the Appellants prescribed in the scheme a special consideration for the industrial /institutional units in Greater Noida which is given in(ii) GNIDA category code(G) which is as follows: -
Industrial / institutional units in Greater Noida areas as on 01. 01 .2002 can also apply in their name for their staff quarters provided that the number of the flats applied is more than 5 and less than 15.
Under GNIDA category the employees cannot transfer the allotted flat for at
least 5 years from the date of allotment. ............
The complainant alleged in the complaint that the Six Flats allotted to the
:2:
Employees were not in one block and they were scattered. As, all the flats were institutional flats for the employees, therefore that complainants were facing problem in maintaining the flats. It is also contended by the complainants that the authority invited the application from the institutions within the area of GNIDA, applications for flats in bigger numbers, simultaneously therefore it was obvious that these flats will be allotted in a group or in one chunk together. By allotting scattered flats the Greater Noida Authority violated the general norms of institutional allotments of the flats. The complainantss are also facing hardship and problem to maintain these flats, hence they requested the authority to re-allot the flats in one block but their request was refused by the authority. Being aggrieved the complainants instituted the complaint in the District Forum.
On hearing both the parties on the aforesaid point the learned District Forum passed the impugned order and directed the Appellants to allot the units in a group in one cluster. On being aggrieved from the order the Appellants submitted this revision petition. The main ground taken in the revision petition is that there is no provision, in the rules or in the brochure for the scheme, for allotment of flats or in a group or in a block together. It is mentioned in the petition that the complainant filed an Appeal number 1 /2007 before the Chairman of the Greater Noida Authority and in this application the complainant sought the same relief but it was rejected by the authority mentioning that there is no provision to allot the flats in one block. In this Revision petition the Appellantss have also contended that the District Consumer Commission has also transgressed its jurisdiction as the district Commission itself has no authority to pass such a direction to allot the flats according to wishes of the complainant, as this is the sole prerogative of the Greater Noida Authority. It is also contended by the Appellants that there is no pleading whatsoever in the complaint about any difficulty in maintenance of flats by the complainants and no particular difficulty or hardship has been defined in the complaint in maintaining theses scattered flats.
On date 26-8-2022 the case/ revision petition was called out, the Counsel of the Shri Rajesh Chadha appeared but none was present on behalf of the respondents, although the service of summons to them was presumed by the order dated 0 9-11-2017. Hence, we heard the arguments of the counsel of Appellants Shri Rajesh Chadha. Our findings on the revision are as following: -
In the impugned order The Learned District Commission has issued a
:3:
direction to the Appellants Greater NOID Authority to allot the flat to the complainant in a certain way. The Appellants have challenged the order on the ground that The District Consumer Commission has no authority or jurisdiction to give such a direction. Therefore, the question before us is that whether the District Commission has transgressed its jurisdiction by way of such an order and it does not come within its authority. Though, the Appellants did not submit any ruling of honourable Supreme Court or honourable NCDRC, we have taken a guideline on the point from the judgement of honourable Supreme Court in ManoharLal (D) through Lrs versus Ugrasen(D) through his Lrs, Review Petition (civil) number 1292 of 2010 Of Civil Appeal Number 973of 2007 order date 24 - 08 - 2011. In the paragraph 13 and 14 of the judgement of honourable apex court it was held that a Court can pass a direction to decide a representation to the competent authority but the Court itself cannot given an order to that effect. In paragraph 14 of the judgement the honourable apex court has held as following: -
14. ...........................................................................................While deciding a representation/petition, an authority or court may issue direction to the person concerned to consider the grievance. However, it is not permissible to pass the order by the superior authority/court itself.
In this particular case before honourable Supreme Court the petitioner applied for a plot before Ghaziabad Development Authority, when he did not get the plot of his choice, he made an application before honourable Chief Minister of the State who himself allotted a particular plot of the choice of the complainant without any intervention of the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The honourable Apex Court held in the aforesaid judgement that the honourable Chief Minister and no authority to allot a plot to any person, which is within sole statutory competence of the Ghaziabad development Authority. In this judgement the honourable Court also said that even a Court can give a direction to the competent authority to decide a representation of the complainant but the Court itself cannot order to decide the representation in the particular manner, because this function is solely on the competence of a development authority.
In this particular case in this revision petition, the opposite party was unable to show that he has a right that all the flats allotted to them to be allotted in one block and they have a right that all the flats they have applied to be allotted together a in one place, no such rule of the Authority was submitted for the perusal
:4:
of the commission. On the other hand the relevant rule under which the opposite party, an institution, applied the flats gives that the employee to whom a flat is allotted, is not competent to transfer it, for at least five years from the date of allotment. This clearly suggests and gives the indication that the flats to be allotted by the Greater NOIDA Authority, are meant for individual transfer/allotment to the employees of the industries or institutions. The relevant rule “Terms and Conditions for Allotment for proposed fully developed finish flats”, Section 2, B-1 eligibility sub rule (ii) is given here under: –
Industrial/institutional units in Greater NOIDA Area as on 1. 1. 2002 can also apply in the name for the staff quarters provided that the number of the flats applied is more than five and less than 15.
Under GNIDA category the employees cannot transfer the allotted a flat for at least five years from the date of allotment.
From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that on one hand The District Consumer Commission was not competent to order the authority for allotment of flats by it, in a particular manner. At the most it may have given direction to the authority to decide representation of the complainant in light of certain rules which gives rise a right to the complainant that there flats will be allotted together and in block only. On the other hand, no particular rule or statutory direction was found by which the complainant can claim that they have a right that the flats allotted to them to be given together a block only. Therefore, we find that the impugned order of the District Consumer Commission is not correct and is without its authority and in this way the ld. Commission has transgressed its jurisdiction. The order deserves to be set aside and the revision petition is fit to be allowed.
Order
The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated of the District Consumer Commission is hereby set aside. It is found appropriate in this case both the parties shall bear their own costs of the revision petition.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission today itsel.
(Vikas Saxena) (Rajendra Singh)
Member Presiding Member
RESERVED
Before State Consumer Redressal Commission, U.P. Lucknow
Revision Petition No. 29 of 2008
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority
169, Sector-Gamma
Gautam Buddh Nagar
Through its chief executive officer
........ Revisionist
Versus
Ishan Educational Research Society
1798/852, Hardhyan Singh Road
Karol Bagh New Delhi (through its Chairman Shri D K Garg)
........ Respondents.
Before :
Shri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member
Shri Vikas Saxena, Member
On behalf of revisionist - Shri Rajesh Chaddha, Advocate
On behalf of respondents - None present
Dated : 07-10-2022
Per Sri Vikas Saxena, Member
This revision petition has been submitted against the impugned order dated 27.12. 2007, passed by District Consumer Redressal Commission Gautam Buddh Nagar in complaint number 348 /2007. By the impugned order the learned Commission directed the authority /the revisionist to allot six flats to the respondents en-block.
It is stated in the complaint that the revisionist applied for allotment of Six Flats in the scheme number code - BHS - 0 5 of the Appellants/Authority. It is also stated by the complainant that the Authority prescribed in the scheme a special consideration for the industrial /institutional units in Greater Noida which is given in(ii) GNIDA category code(G) which is as follows: -
Industrial / institutional units in Greater Noida areas as on 01.01.2002 can also apply in their name for their staff quarters provided that the number of the flats applied is more than 5 and less than 15.
Under GNIDA category the employees cannot transfer the allotted flat for at least 5 years from the date of allotment. ............
The complainant alleged in the complaint that the Six Flats allotted to the Employees were not in one block and they were scattered in the area. As, all the flats were institutional flats for the employees, hence, the complainants were facing
:2:
problem in maintaining the flats. It is contended by the complainants that the authority invited the application from the institutions within the area of GNIDA, applications for flats in bigger numbers, simultaneously therefore it was obvious that these flats will be allotted in a group or in one chunk together. By allotting scattered flats the Greater Noida Authority violated the general norms of institutional allotments of the flats. The complainants are also facing hardship and problem to maintain these flats, hence they requested the authority to re-allot the flats in one block but their request was refused by the authority and again in an Appeal to its Chairman. Being aggrieved the complainants instituted the complaint in the District Forum.
On hearing both the parties on the aforesaid point the learned District Forum passed the impugned order and directed the revisionist to allot the units in a group i.e. in one cluster. On being aggrieved from the order the revisionist submitted this revision petition. The main ground taken in the revision petition is that there is no provision, in the rules or in the brochure of the scheme, for allotment of flats together or in a group or in a block. It is mentioned in the petition that the complainant filed an Appeal number 1 /2007 before the Chairman of the Greater Noida Authority and in this application the complainant sought the same relief but it was rejected by the authority mentioning that there is no provision to allot the flats in one block. In this Revision petition the revisionists have also contended that the District Consumer Commission has also transgressed its jurisdiction as the district Commission itself has no authority to pass such a direction to allot the flats according to wishes of the complainant, as this is the sole prerogative of the Greater Noida Authority. It is also contended by the revisionist that there is no pleading whatsoever in the complaint about any difficulty in maintenance of flats by the complainants and no particular difficulty or hardship has been defined in the complaint in maintaining theses scattered flats.
On date 26-8-2022 the case/ revision petition was called out, the Counsel of the Shri Rajesh Chadha appeared but none was present on behalf of the respondents, although the service of summons to them was presumed by the order dated 0 9-11-2017. Hence, we heard the arguments of the counsel of revisionist Shri Rajesh Chadha. Our findings on the revision are as following: -
In the impugned order The Learned District Commission has issued a direction to the revisionist Greater NOIDA Authority to allot the flat to the
:3:
complainant in a certain way. The revisionist have challenged the order on the ground that the District Consumer Commission has no authority or jurisdiction to give such a direction. Therefore, the question before us is that whether the District Commission has transgressed its jurisdiction by way of such an order and it does not come within its authority. We have followed a guideline on the point in question, from the judgement of honourable Supreme Court in Manohar Lal (D) through Lrs versus Ugrasen(D) through his Lrs, Review Petition (civil) number 1292 of 2010 Of Civil Appeal Number 973 of 2007 order date 24 - 08 - 2011. In the paragraph 13 and 14 of the judgement of honourable apex court it was held that a Court can pass a direction to a competent authority decide a representation regarding the a right of aggrieved person in a matter which is within a statutory powers of the authrity but the Court itself cannot given an order to that effect. In paragraph 14 of the judgement the honourable Apex court has held as following: -
14. ...........................................................................................While deciding a representation/petition, an authority or court may issue direction to the person concerned to consider the grievance. However, it is not permissible to pass the order by the superior authority/court itself.
In this particular case before honourable Supreme Court the petitioner applied for a plot before Ghaziabad Development Authority, when he did not get the plot of his choice, he made an application before honourable Chief Minister of the State who himself allotted a particular plot of the choice of the complainant without any intervention of the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The honourable Apex Court held in the aforesaid judgement that the honourable Chief Minister and no authority to allot a plot to any person by himself, which is within sole statutory competence of the Ghaziabad development Authority. In this judgement the honourable Court also said that even a Court can give only a direction to the competent authority to decide a representation of the complainant but the Court itself cannot order to decide the matter in the particular manner, because this function is solely within the competence of the development authority.
In this particular case before us in this revision petition, the opposite party was unable to show that he has a right that all the flats allotted to them to be allotted in one block and they have a right that all the flats they have applied to be allotted together a in one place, no such rule of the Authority was submitted for the
:4:
perusal of the commission. On the other hand the relevant rule under which the opposite party, an institution, applied the flats gives that the employee to whom a flat is allotted, is not competent to transfer it, for at least five years from the date of allotment. This clearly suggests and gives the indication that the flats to be allotted by the Greater NOIDA Authority, are meant for individual transfer/allotment to the employees of the industries or institutions. The relevant rule “Terms and Conditions for Allotment for proposed fully developed finish flats”, Section 2, B-1 eligibility sub rule (ii) has been given here under: –
Industrial/institutional units in Greater NOIDA Area as on 1. 1. 2002 can also apply in the name for the staff quarters provided that the number of the flats applied is more than five and less than 15.
Under GNIDA category the employees cannot transfer the allotted a flat for at least five years from the date of allotment.
From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that on one hand The District Consumer Commission was not competent to order the authority for allotment of flats by it, in a particular manner. At the most it may have given direction to the authority to decide representation of the complainant in light of certain rules which gives rise a right to the complainant that there flats will be allotted together and in block only. On the other hand, no particular rule or statutory direction was found by which the complainant can claim that they have a right that the flats allotted to them to be given together a block only. Therefore, we find that the impugned order of the District Consumer Commission is not correct and is without its authority and in this way the ld. Commission has transgressed its jurisdiction. The order deserves to be set aside and the revision petition is fit to be allowed.
Order
The revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated of the District Consumer Commission is hereby set aside. It is found appropriate in this case both the parties shall be their own costs of the revision petition.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission today itself.
(Vikas Saxena) (Rajendra Singh)
Member Presiding Member
