Chandigarh

DF-I

EA/99/2022

Rajni Bala - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bajwa Developrs, Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Saksham Arora

06 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	EA/99/2022
Date of Institution	:	8.9.2022
Date of Decision	:	06/05 /2024

 

Rajni Bala, aged 56 years w/o aged 56 years w/o Sh. Amar Chand s/o Japha Ram r/o House no. 1185, D.A.D Colony, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

 

Applicant/ Complainant.

 

VERSUS

 

1. M/S Bajwa Developrs, limited, Through its Managing director, Sunny Business Centre, 5th Floor, Above Gopal Sweets, Desumajra, Kharar District S.A.S, Nagar, Mohali.

 

2. REALM Infra, through its Managing Director, 1st Floor, Sunny Business Centre, above Gopal Sweets, Desumajra Kharar, Punjab.

 

3. The Executive Officer Municipal Committee, Kharar

 

Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gautam Goyal, Advocate for complainant/applicant
	:	Sh. Inderpal Singh Bains, Advocate for OP No.1
	:	None for OP No.2
	:	Sh. Gurvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for OP No.3

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The Applicant/complainant has filed the present contempt application against the OPs under Section 72 of the Contempt of Courts Act for violating the stay order of this Commission passed on 29.7.2022.   

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the Execution Application that the applicant/complainant has filed CC/144/2021 against the OPs under Consumer Protection Act and during the pendency of the said complaint the applicant/complainant filed an application before this Commission for restraining the OPs from raising construction and accordingly this Commission  passed stay order on 29.7.2022. As per the case of the applicant/complainant the width of the road was supposed to be 35 ft in size  and as per report of OP No.2  the size of the road is 30ft and on that account only the stay order dated 29.7.2022 Annexure C-1 was passed by this Commission.  The report of OP No.2 is placed on record as Annexure C-2. As per the applicant/complainant as the OPs are raising construction in violation of stay order passed by this Commission as is evident from photograph Annexure C-3, the OPs have ignored the stay order passed by this Commission and as such contempt proceedings are required to be initiated against the OPs and they be punished in accordance with law.
2. No reply to the instant application has been filed by OPs No.1&2.
3. OP No.3 has filed reply, stating therein that in fact there is nothing regarding width of road in the complaint filed by the complainant nor there is any prayer by the complainant about the alleged encroachment of road by the OPs. However it is admitted that report-cum-letter of OP No.3/MC Kharar dated 16.5.2022 regarding the width of the road  has been issued and the OP No.3 has never violated the stay order passed by this  Commission.. Not only this, even the answering OP vide various letters directed Ops No.1&2 to stop construction  in front of house Nos.3020 to 3033 and 3097 to 3209 and the and the said construction has been stopped on the spot. It is further alleged that the present application  being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OPs No.1&3 and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments on record.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the applicant/complainant had filed complaint against the OPs before this Commission and sought relief against OPs No.1&2 with the request to direct them to provide basic amenities such as required approvals, permanent electricity connection, proper water supply, street lights, sewerage, Drainage, proper maintenance of Parks etc alongwith interest and compensation and the complainant has not averred even  a single word  in the complaint about the width of  the road or any construction being raised over the same by the OPs and during the pendency of the complaint he has filed an application for grant of stay against the OPs, restraining them from raising any construction in such a manner that there is no deviation from original duly approved plan and as per norms  and terms and conditions  of the local municipal corporation  as is evident from the copy of order Annexure C-1 dated 29.7.2022, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the proceedings under section 72 of the Contempt of Courts Act as prayed by the complainant or under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act  are required to be initiated against the OPs.
   2. So far as the prayer of the complainant to initiate the contempt proceedings  under Section 72 of the Contempt of Courts Act  is concerned, since the Contempt Court Act 1971 contains 24 Sections, there is no question of initiating the contempt proceedings against the OPs under Section 72 as prayed by the complainant. Even if the present application be treated under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act for initiation of the contempt, onus is upon the complainant to prove that the Ops have not complied with the order passed by this Commission.
   3. This Commission has power  of Judicial Magistrate First Class  for trial of the offence under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. The relevant Section 72 is reproduced as under:-

“(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of first class for the trial of offences under sub-section (1), and on conferment of such powers, the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of first class for the purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974).”

 

4. However, the complainant is required to prove that there is sufficient material on the file to take cognizance against the OPs. The case of the complainant is revolving around the order dated 29.7.2022 Annexure C-1 passed by this Commission and the  report of the OP No.3 Annexure C-2. The relevant portion of the order dated 29.7.2022 is as under:-

 “3. At this stage, counsel for complainant states that in view of the aforesaid letter of Municipal Committee, Kharar with regard to width of road, he does not press his prayer for appointment of Local Commissioner for inspection. However, he presses for remaining prayer clause with regard to the stay.

4.  Heard. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to grant the stay on any further construction to the extent that there is no deviation from original duly approved site plan and the construction so carried out must be strictly as per the norms, terms & conditions of the local municipal corporation.”

5. So far as the copy of report of OP No.3 is concerned, it is clear that OPs No.1&2 have been asked by the OP No.3  that they  have constructed road only having   width of 30 ft. whereas as per lay out plan the same was required to be constructed with the width of 35 ft.. Annexure  C-3 is the photographs showing that some material is stacked on the spot.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that as it stands proved on record that the OPs No.1&2 have raised construction and thereby  failed to comply with the order dated 29.7.2022 passed by this Commission they are liable to be punished under Section 72 of the Act.
7. On the other hand the counsel for OP No.1 contended that the complainant has failed to prove on record that the  OPs No.1 has ever violated the order passed  by this Commission and further that the complainant  has filed a false application and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. There is force in the contention of learned counsel for OPs No.1  as the complainant has failed to prove on record that if the Ops have raised construction in such a manner  that there is deviation from originally approved site plan and the same is not as per norm and terms and conditions of the Local Municipal Corporation. The best evidence available with the complainant which she could have led  on the record in order to prove the said violation   is the report of  local commissioner or she could have got the same demarcated  on the spot. Perusal of order dated 29.7.2022 Annexure C-1 further indicates that though the complainant has earlier made request for the appointment of the Local Commissioner for inspection of the spot at the time of filing the application for stay but the said prayer was not pressed by the complainant before this Commission  and accordingly the local commissioner was not appointed on the request of the complainant. Moreover, the photographs Annexure C-3 will not automatically prove that the OPs have raised construction in such a manner that they have violated  the order dated 29.7.2022.
9. Thus unless it is proved on record that the OPs have raised the construction in such a manner that they have reduced  the approved width  of the road  it is unsafe to hold that the OPs have not complied with the order dated 29.7.2022  passed by this Commission.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion the OPs have failed to bring on record sufficient material against the OPs  in order to prove that the OPs have violated the directions contained in order dated 29.7.2022. Hence, the contempt application is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.. 

3. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present application, being not maintainable, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
4. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
5. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 6/05/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member