1. By this Revision Petition, Rajasthan Housing Board (for short “the Housing Board”) and its Deputy Housing Commissioner call in question the legality and the correctness of the order dated 18.01.2017, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.3 at Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 1556 of 2011. By the impugned order, while overturning the order dated 19.07.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Alwar (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 429/2010, whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein and her father had been dismissed, the State Commission has come to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Housing Board in rejecting the Application filed by the Complainants for allotment of a house under the Special Registration Scheme, 2007, floated by the Housing Board for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS). While holding so, the State Commission has directed the Housing Board to take appropriate action on the Application, in terms of the policy conditions, permitting a minor to jointly apply for allotment of the house along with his/her any family member. The State Commission has also awarded a lump-sum compensation of ₹25,000/- in favour of the Complainants for the harassment and the mental agony suffered by them on account of this arbitrary action. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Housing Board, while assailing the order impugned in this Revision Petition, has vehemently submitted that the State Commission has committed a serious irregularity in ignoring the fact that though the Application did bear the names of the minor daughter and her father, and the Application was purportedly filed in the joint names but all the subsequent events, including the deposit of the amounts towards registration and the cost of the flat in the name of the minor, showed that in reality the applicant was only a minor, whose request for allotment could be considered only on her attaining the age of majority. It is also alleged that the name of the father was inserted later, which amounts to playing a fraud with the Housing Board. 3. Having perused the documents on record, including the Application form and the information obtained by the Complainants under the Right to Information Act, 2005, disclosing the reason for rejection of the application, we are of the view that the Revision Petition is bereft of any merit. It is evident from the Application form that it was in the joint names of daughter and father, with their photographs. It is true that the afore-stated plea of interpolation in the Application form was raised in the Written Version filed on behalf of the Housing Board but, except for a bald plea, no evidence in support thereof was adduced by the Housing Board. 4. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality, legal or factual, in the impugned order, setting aside the decision of the Housing Board as being arbitrary, and in the direction to consider the Application filed by the Complainants as per the terms of the Scheme, treating it as a joint application. 5. Resultantly, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. |
