PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN (ORAL) 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 149 of 2007, Haryana Urban Development Authority has approached this Commission with a petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 13.09.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was partly accepted by granting the following reliefs :- “… This complaint, therefore, is allowed. The respondents are directed not to amend the original lay out plan and deprive the complainant from having corridor on both sides of the shop in question. The respondents are also burdened to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of litigation expenses and compensation for the harassment caused by the respondents to the complainant. The order of this Forum be complied within one month. The delay in deciding the matter is due to heavy pending files and also due to non-appointment of a regular President in the Forum for a long time.” 2. This petition has been filed after a delay of 91 days. We have considered the grounds set up in the application for condonation of delay. We do not see any sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the present petition. Even then, we have considered the petition on merits as well. 3. As the appeal before the State Commission was filed after a delay of 80 days, an application seeking condonation of delay was also filed but the State Commission dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner/appellant failed to show sufficient cause, which delayed the filing of the appeal. Even then, the State Commission considered the appeal on merits and dismissed the appeal on both the counts upholding the order of the District Forum. 4. We have heard Ms. Anubha Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and have considered her submissions. She states that both the fora below have erred in passing the order and giving the direction to the petitioner/HUDA not to amend the original lay out plan, so as to deprive the complainant from having corridor on both sides of the shop in question. She submits that such a direction could not be given by a consumer fora as it was the prerogative and right of the petitioner/HUDA to have altered and modified the original lay out plan if it was required under the larger public interest or exigencies of service. We must reject this contention because what the District Forum had directed the petitioner/HUDA is not to amend the lay out plan to the detriment of the respondent/complainant. The petitioner/HUDA is presumed to have taken into account all contingencies before putting the site/shop for auction and having done so, they have no right to alter the terms and conditions of the said allotment, in particular to render the auction somewhat disadvantageous to the respondent/complainant. In our view, the impugned order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity muchless any jurisdictional error which warrants any interference by this Commission. 5. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. | 
