Haryana

StateCommission

A/207/2020

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANJU SINGLA - Opp.Party(s)

SIKANDER BAKSHI

14 Mar 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.207 of 2020

 

 

Date of Institution:19.02.2020

Date of final hearing:14.03.2024

Date of pronouncement:19.03.2024

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1.      Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panipat, through its Estate Officer having office at HUDA Complex, Sector-18, Panipat.

2.      Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, having office at C-12, HUDA Complex, Sector-6, Panchkula.

…Appellants.

 

Through counsel Mr.Ashwani Chaudhary, Advocate

 

Versus

 

Ved Pal Lamba son of Shri Balwant Singh, R/o Lamba Bhawan, Railway Road, near G.T. Road, Gannaur, District Sonepat.

….Respondent.

Through counsel Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate

 

Present:-    Mr. Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Mr. Rajesh Bansal, counsel for respondent.

 

CORAM:   Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

 

O R D E R

 

PER MANJULA, MEMBER:

 

          Present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 04.07.2018, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (now learned ‘District Commission’) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant (Manju Singla) was allowed and the opposite parties (‘OPs’) were directed as under:-

“…So as a sequel to our aforementioned findings and observations, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPS to withdraw the order dated 25.01.2010 regarding cancelling the allotment of the plot and to restore the plot No.550 Sector 25 Part Il, HUDA to the complainant, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental harassment caused to her and the litigation expenses.”

 

2.               Brief facts of complaint filed before learned District Commission are that the complainant was aallottee of plot No.550, Sector 25 Part-ll, HUDA, Panipat vide allotment letter No.2576 dated 28.2.2002, under the scheme floated by the OPs for allotment of the residential plots measuring 4,6 and 8 Marlas for housing of Industrial workers in Sector 25, Part Il, HUDA, Panipat. Initially thePlot No.550 situated at Sector-25, Part-II, HUDA, Panipat was allotted to Shri Deepak Siwach son of Shri Bijender Singh Siwach, R/o House No.346, Old Housing Board Colony, Rohtak and he appointed Shri Pardeep Kumar son of Shri PadamSain, R/o House No.23/5, Panipat as his General Power of Attorney vide GPA Vasika No.1556 dated 08.02.2006. Accordingly, OP No.1 executed and got registered deed of conveyance Vasika No.4851 dated 05.09.2008 in the name of Said Deepak Siwach through his said GPA Shri Pardeep Kumar. Thereafter, said Pardeep Kumar sold the said plot to the complainant by way of sale deed dated 05.09.2008 and thus, complainant has stepped into the shoes of original allottee Shri Deepak Siwach and became owner in possession of said plot.  The eligibility criteria for allotment of the said plots was i) Only those persons  who are bonafide residents of Haryana and did not own any plot or house in the state in his/her name spouse name or in the name of any dependent family members ii) the applicant should be employed with any registered industry in the state, such a certificate from employer alongwith sale tax registration number of the industry was to be attached with the application and iii) if more than one applicant from one family consisting of husband, wife and dependent family member became successful in the draw, then allotment would be restricted to only one plot in the family. In pursuant to the said advertisement, complainant applied for allotment of the plot. Draw of applications for allotment of the plots was held on26.2.2002 and plot No.550, Sector 25 part-II, HUDA, Panipat was allotted to the complainant. The complainant had deposited all the payments qua the said plot and possession was delivered to the complainant by OP No.1. It was further alleged that vide order dated25.01.2010 passed by OP No.1 allotment of the plot No.550, Sector 25, Part-Il, HUDA Panipat has been cancelled. The Administrator, HUDA, Rohtak also disposed of the appeal filed by the complainant vide order dated 29.12.2015. It was further alleged that cancellation order dated 25.01.2010 has been passed in view of the preliminary enquiry report of State Vigilance Bureau wherein allottee Deepak Siwach was not found industrial worker as he was working  M/s LSP Bossard Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak and he was drawing salary is higher than Rs.6500/- per month and he did not fall in definition of industrial worker under the Industrial disputes Act. Therefore, allotment of the plot in favour of complainant was cancelled. It was further alleged that neither designation of Industrial Worker nor his monthly salary was among the conditions for the allotment of the plots mentioned in the brochure. It was further alleged that OP No.1 sought the clarification from Chief Administrator, HUDA,Panchkula, regarding policy/guidelines regarding definition of industrial workers so that matter might be regularized and draw of plots may be held accordingly. In reply, Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula sent letter to OP No. 1 and reiterated that conditions mentioned in the Brochures to be seen while scrutinizing the application for the allotment of the plots.It was further alleged that similar controversy has already been set at rest by this Hon'ble Forum in the case of Sh.Nup Singh, who was allottee of plot No.562 and the said plot was cancelled vide order dated 05.04.2002 by OP No.1. On the same grounds as he was employed as Senior Assistant in SBI, Special commercial Branch GT Road, Panipat and said Nup Singh filed complaint before this Forum and this Forum set aside the cancellation order vide judgment dated 02.12.2003 by holding that Nup Singh falls under the definition of industrial worker. The OPs filed appeal against the order dated 02.12.2003 before the Hon'ble State commission, Haryana and the appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble state commission vide order dated09.01.2009. Likewise, revision filed by the OPs before the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi was also dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2010 and the Hon'ble Apex court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against the order dated 12.04.2010 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission vide order dated 26.07.2011.

3.               It was further alleged that the complainant has come to know that one Sh.P.P.Kapoor had filed Writ Petition No. 253 of 2008 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High court and allotment of the plot was got enquired through State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana. As per said preliminary report of State vigilance Bureau, allottee - complainant was not found industrial worker as he was working as Senior Assistant Manager at that time in NFL and drawing salary of Rs.18000/- and allotment of the said plot in favour of complainant was cancelled by the OPs. The complainant has alleged that allotment in favour of complainant was made in accordance with the procedure and rules of OPs and after verification of documents and thus the cancellation of the allotment of the said plot amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and has prayed for setting aside the cancellation order dated 25.01.2010 and has sought compensation alongwith litigation expenses. The complainant has also filed his affidavit in support of the contents of the present complaint.

4.               Upon notice OPs appeared before learned District Commission and submitted their written version by stating therein that that the plot No.550, situated in Sector 25, part Il, HUDA was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter No.2576 dated 28.2.2002 in accordance with the policies, rules and regulations of the OP. Thereafter, Sh.P.P.Kapoor filed a civil writ petition No.253 of 2008 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High court Chandigarh against the state of Haryana and others challenging the allotment of industrial plots in Sector 25, Part -11, HUDA, Panipat. The State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana was also impleaded as respondent who was directed to file an investigation report with regard to the allegations of wrong allotment of the said plots. The State Vigilance Bureau Haryana filed a preliminary investigation report before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High court and the Hon'ble High court passed the preliminary order dated 20.01.2009 and in compliance with the order dated 20.01.2009, it was found that the allottee was not within the meaning of Industrial worker as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence a decision was taken to cancel the allotment of the said plot by adopting due procedure as laid down in the orders of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High court and a show cause notice was also issued to the complainant but the complainant failed to appear before the Estate Officer HUDA, Panipat and thus, it was concluded that the plot was allotted in violation of the policy and as such the allotment of the plot in question was cancelled vide order dated 25.01.2010 passed by the OP No.1. The OPs have been acting in accordance with law, rules and regulations and terms and conditions of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act 1977, as amended upto date and they never committed any negligence or provided deficient services to the complainant and have prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

5.              After hearing both the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint as mentioned in para 1^st (Supra).

6.                Aggrieved from the impugned order, OPs-HUDA (Present appellants) have preferred this appeal for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.07.2018, passed by learned District Commission.

7.                Arguments have been advanced by Mr. Ashwani Chaudhary, Advocate for appellants and Mr. Rajesh Bansal, learned counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as original record of learned District Commission including whatever evidence have been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.                Before going on merits, this Commission has to deal with delay of 558 days, which occurred in the filing of the present appeal. Appellants-OPs have filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of 578 days wherein,  it is alleged that the impugned order dated 04.07.2018 was prepared on 10.07.2018 and was delivered on 11.07.2018. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the office of Administrator, HUDA, Rohtak for filing an appeal and for taking further necessary action. Office of Administrator, HUDA, Rohtak approved the matter and after receiving approval, a letter was sent to HQ, Legal Cell, HUDA, Panchkula for engaging an Advocate for filing of appeal. Thereafter, through proper channels the officials of the appellants have engaged and contacted the present counsel, who prepared the draft of appeal and handed over relevant documents. Thereafter, draft of appeal was prepared and sent to higher authorities for approval. In this whole process delay occurred, which is neither intentional nor willful but on account of the reasons mentioned herein above.

9.                Arguments heard on application for condonation of delay as well as on merits of appeal. File perused.

10.              However, the contention of learned counsel for appellant to condone delay is of no avail.  A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Commission. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act and rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that delay of each and every day should be explained properly with some reasonable cause but in the appeal in hand, no reasonable ground and sufficient cause has been pleaded or proved.  Thus, inordinate delay for more than 578 days, cannot be condoned as there is no justifiable reason or sufficient cause to condone the same.

11.              Here reliance can be placed on the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days’ delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

  

In2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Courtobserved as under:-

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”.

12.              In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay for 578 days in filing the appeal is dismissed.

13.              Even on merits also, the basic and foremost question which requires adjudication of this commission whether the allottee is considered to be within the definition of industrial worker?

14.                       Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that plot in question allotted to the complainant was rightly cancelled by the HUDA authorities on 25.01.2010, as complainant was not industrial worker as per the investigation made by Haryana Vigilance Bureau.

15.                       Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that complainant is working in NFL applied for allotment of the plot. Draw of applications for allotment of the plots was held on 26.02.2002 and plot No.550, Sector 25, Part-II, HUDA, Panipat was allotted to him. The HUDA vide letter dated 25.01.2010 wrongly cancelled the allotment of plot. The cancellation order dated 25.01.2010 has been passed in view of the preliminary enquiry report of State Vigilance Bureau, wherein original allottee was not found industrial worker.  It was alleged in the report that there was violation of terms and conditions of allotment policy. Consequently, the plot was cancelled. 

16.                       Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that in similar case plot No. 562 in Sector 25, Part II, HUDA was allotted to one Sh.Nup Singh, who was employed as Senior Assistant in SBI, Special Commercial Branch, GT road, Panipat. The plot in question was cancelled vide order dated 05.04.2002  issued by OP No.1. The Nup Singh filed complaint before the District Forum and the learned District Forum set aside the cancellation order vide judgement dated 02.12.2003 by holding that Nup Singh falls under the definition of industrial worker. The OPs filed appeal against the order dated 02.12.2003 before the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, which was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 09.01.2009. The revision filed  by the OPs before Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi was also dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2010.  Hon’ble Supreme Court also dismissed the Special leave petition filed against the order dated 12.04.2010 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 26.07.2011.  The complainant has come to know that one Sh.P.P.Kapoor had filed writ petition No.253 of 2008 before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and allotment of the plot was got enquired through State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana and as per the preliminary report of State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana, Original allottee was not found  industrial worker and allotment of the said plot in favour of the original allottee was cancelled by the OPs. Thus, cancellation of the allotment of the said plot amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

17.              In order to answer this main issue the different ways have been adopted to ascertain as to whether the allotment of a residential plot to the allottee has been rightly made or not.  Initially, the matter was assigned to State Vigilance Bureau, Panchkula for preliminary inquiry, wherein the allottee was not found industrial worker and not entitled for the allotment of plot.

18.              Though fact that initial finding of preliminary enquiry was contrary to the final report made by the Deputy Inspector General of State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana while submitting the report No.674 dated 16.11.2018 vide which it has been concluded that the allottee has not violated any terms and condition of HUDA and recommended that the fresh allotment of plot be issued in favour of the allottee.  It has been concluded that the labourer is the person who has carrying salary upto Rs.6500/- fall under the definition of industrial worker, which was decided by the then Research Officer, the decision is made by Research officer on his own, which is not written in any Act or rule. Apart from this since the allotting agency was not favouring the allottee, one of the allottee Nup Singh in another complaint has also filed consumer complaint before the District Forum, which was allowed vide order dated 02.12.2003. The appeal was preferred before this Commission by HUDA, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Principal Bench vide order dated 09.01.2009.  Similarly, the matter went to the Hon’ble National Commission and the findings of Hon’ble National Commission was upheld and thereafter HUDA authority has filed SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP CC 11307 of 2011 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. NUP Singh, which was finally decided on 26.07.2011.  The SLP preferred by HUDA was dismissed and since the judgement has attained finality, there is no reason to find any legal impediment to intervene in the order passed by the learned District Forum out of which the present appeal has been filed.  Hence the contention which have been taken in the appeal or while addressing the arguments do not substantiate the stands taken on behalf of the appellant.  As such the question is answered in the affirmative and there is deficiency in services and OPs. have indulged in unfair trade practice also.

19.                       As a consequence thereof, the contentions raised on  behalf of the appellants have been considered, but, have not been found to be tenable without enforcing merit and render no assistance. The present appeal apparently is devoid of merits and stands dismissed on both counts delay as well as on merits.

20.              Thus, learned District Commission rightly observed that the appellants-OPs (HUDA) were deficient in service and rightly issued the directions as mentioned above. Impugned order dated 04.07.2018, passed by learned District Commission, Panipat is well reasoned, based on facts, as per law and there is no need to interfere with it.  Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed on delay as well as on merits while upholding the order passed by the learned District Commission.

21.              The statutory amount of Rs.2,750/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and due verification, as per rules.

22.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

23.              Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

24.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 19^th March, 2024           Manjula                     Naresh Katyal

Member                     Judicial Member