1.      Heard Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, Advocate, for the revisionist.

2.      The office has reported that the revision has been filed with delay of 291 days. The revisionist has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. In which it has been stated that certified copy of the impugned order dated 31.12.2019, passed by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission was supplied on 04.03.2020. Revision could have been filed within 90 days i.e. up to 01.06.2020, after receiving certified copy of the order. In the meantime pandemic Covid-19 spread all over the country and lockdown was imposed as such revision could not be filed within period of limitation. Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, by orders dated 23.03.2020, 08.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 has directed all the Courts and Authority to add and extend the limitation from 15.03.2020, in the limitation as originally provided under the Statute, due to pandemic Covid-19 and consequent imposition of lockdown in the country. As such, delay in filing the revision is condoned, subject to any objection of the respondent.

3.      This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. Lucknow dated 31.12.2019 passed in First Appeal No. 1889 of 2002 [arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar dated 04.07.2002, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 784 of 1997 (New No. 162 of 2001)], whereby District Forum, has allowed the complaint and directed New Okhla Industrial Development Authority to return Rs.27,010/- along with interest @ of 15% per annum w.e.f. 19.06.1996 till the date of payment and pay Rs.1000/- as cost of the litigation and the appeal filed by the revisionist has been partly allowed and the interest has been reduced @ 1% per annum from 15%.

4.      M.C. Pandey (the respondent) filed Consumer Complaint No. 784 of 1997 (New No. 162 of 2001), for directing the revisionist to refund Rs.27,010/- to him along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 19.06.1996 i.e extension charge at the penal rate deposited by the complainant for extension of period of construction, to pay litigation costs and any other order which the Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant was a central government servant and member of Central Government Servant Co-operative Land and House Construction Society, 131, Community Centre Sector-36, NOIDA. Aforesaid society applied to NOIDA for allotment of residential plots to its members. NOIDA allotted plot No. B-62 (area 311.85 sq. mtrs), Sector-36 NOIDA at the rate of Rs.130/- per sq. mtr. to the complainant in 1981. Lease deed in favour of the complainant was executed on 22.03.1986 and possession was given at that time. According to the terms of lease deed the construction was to be erected and completed within two years. It was further stipulated that if the construction was not completed within two years, then the lessee could obtain extension of period of construction on deposit of 4% of the total premium of the plot, for a period of one year and maximum for four years. The complainant was posted in foreign countries at that time as such could not complete his construction and got extension of construction period, consecutively for four times after depositing extension charges, which was extended till 21.03.1992. In the meantime, NOIDA issued a show cause notice dated 08.09.1991, for cancellation of the lease deed and cancelled the lease deed of the complainant and many other allottees on 13.12.1991. The complainant and other allottees, whose lease deed were cancelled, challenged the order of cancellation in High Court Allahabad, which was allowed. In compliance of the order of High Court, lease deed of the complainant was restored on 19.01.1996, after charging Rs.42,708/- as restoration charge but period of completion of the construction was extended till 31.03.1996 only. The complainant could not complete his construction within short extended period and applied for extension of construction period. Then NOIDA demanded extension charge at penal rate i.e. total Rs. 27,010/-, which was deposited on 19.06.1996. Later on,  the complainant, came to know that NOIDA had extended period of construction to T.D. Agrawal, V.N. Sharma, B.L. Seth, N.C. Chakravarty, N.K. Arora, A.K. Mitra and K.K. Agrawal without charging any extension charge although these persons were similarly situated as the complainant. He submitted that construction period was earlier extended till 21.03.1992 but due to notice dated 08.09.1991, the construction was stopped as such while restoring the lease deed, the period during 08.09.1991 to 21.03.1992 was liable to be provided over and above 31.03.1996, free of cost. Otherwise also, NOIDA was a public authority and it should adopt uniform policy for all. If T.D. Agrawal and others were allowed extension of period of construction without charging extension/penal charge, then the complainant was also entitled for the same benefits and refund of his money along with interest.       

5.      NOIDA contested the case and filed its written statement on 14.01.1999, in which, all material facts were admitted. It has been stated that the complainant has already deposited charges for extension of construction on 19.06.1996 and he was not entitled for refund of money as such his request for refund of money was denied on 18.09.1996.     

6.      District Forum by the judgment dated 04.07.2002, held that NOIDA was a public authority, as such could not adopt different policy for extending period of construction between the same category of persons. On these findings, the complaint was allowed and the revisionist was directed to refund Rs. 27,010/- along with interest @ of 15% per annum. The revisionist filed First Appeal No.1889 of 2002 from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. Lucknow, who by its judgment dated 31.12.2019 partly modified the order of District Forum and reduced the interest to @ 1% per annum from 15% per annum. Hence, this revision petition has been filed.

7.      We have considered the arguments of the revisionist and examined the record. The fact that T.D. Agrawal, V.N. Sharma, B.L. Seth, N.C. Chakravarty, N.K. Arora, A.K. Mitra and K.K. Agrawal were granted extension of period for completing their construction without charging any extension charge in 1996 although these persons were similarly situated as the complainant, has not been denied at any stage. The orders of Foras below that different policy has been adopted by the revisionist for extension of the period of construction between the same category of persons does not suffer from any illegality. Being a public authority, NOIDA is bound to adopt an uniform policy for all. State Commission has already reduced the interest even below the rate of interest provided by the bank. The revisionist could not point out any illegality in the orders of Foras below. The revision has no merit.  

O R D ER

          In view of the aforesaid discussions, the revision is dismissed.