Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> President,<br /> <br /> 1. This complaint is filed by Smt.Anuradha Moorthy, seeking direction to the O.P. – MUDA to allot her a site measuring 15 x 24 mtrs in Vasanthanagara Layout, along with cost of Rs.1,000/-. The complainant has sought further direction to the O.P. to stop “Unfair trade practice.<br /> <br /> 2. Notice was duly served on the O.P., who appeared, filed version, affidavits and seriously contested the complaint. Complainant has filed affidavit, and produced Xerox copies of four documents. Heard the learned representative for the complainant, and learned counsel for the O.P.<br /> <br /> 3. Undisputed facts, can be briefly summarized as under:-<br /> <br /> O.P. – MUDA has called application for allotment of sites to persons belonging to general category under KUDA (allotment of sites) Rule 1991 by notification dated 30-11-04. There is no dispute that complainant applied for allotment of a site, measuring 15 x 24 mtrs, and registered her name by paying an amount of Rs.2,000/- through D.D. dated 20-01-05 towards the initial deposit. There is also no dispute that complainant was not allotted any site, as per the said notification. It is admitted by the O.P. that they have sent a letter, which was received by the complainant on 15-7-05, informing her, the priority unique mode no.57115263. As per this letter, her seniority for allotment of a site during subsequent allotment, if applied by the complainant was retained. There is also no dispute that O.P. issued notification no.1/2005-06, calling for applications for allotment of sites in (1) Lal Bahudhur Shastri Nagar; (2) Shantaveri Gopalagowda Nagar; and (3) Lalithadri Nagar. There is also no dispute that complainant submitted her application on 20-01-05, informing the O.P. that an amount of Rs.39,100/-, which was already deposited with O.P., should be retained as initial deposit. <br /> <br /> 4. The first contention of the complainant that in the letter, which she had received on 15-7-05 her seniority is fixed in respect of site measuring 12 x 24 mtrs, which is in correct. In fact, complainant had applied for site measuring 15 x 24 mtrs. and her seniority should be fixed for such area. The 2nd contention of the complainant is that when application was called as per notification dated 30-11-04. There was income restriction for allotment of sites of particular area. But, in the notification no.1/05-06 such criteria has been withdrawn. Such act of the O.P. amounts to “Unfair trade practice”. The O.P. has collected huge amount as “initial deposit” by making application forms available for sale, even at Bangalore. Such “Unfair trade practice” should be discontinued. Hence, complainant has prayed for allowing this complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. The O.P. has admitted the first contention of the complainant, and submitted that there was topographic mistake in the letter dated 15-7-05, and the claim of the complainant would be considered only for allotment of site, measuring 15 x 24 mtrs. Regarding the 2nd contention, it is mentioned that the forms were made available at Bangalore for the purpose of convenience of public and there is no deficiency in service. If, complainant would have approached the MUDA, the area would have been corrected. There is no “Unfair trade practice”, hence prayed for dismissing the complaint.<br /> <br /> 6. Points for our consideration are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. Whether complainant has proved deficiency in service, if so, to what extent?<br /> 2. Whether complainant has proved that “Unfair trade practice as alleged in the complaint?<br /> 3. Whether complainant is entitled for allotment of a site in Vasanthanagar Layout?<br /> 4. What order?<br /> <br /> 7. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. Point no.1 : Affirmative.<br /> 2. Point no.2 and 3: Negative.<br /> 3. Point no.4 : As per final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Point no. 1:- It is admitted by the O.P. that due to topographic mistake, the area of the site, which the complainant sought is shown as 12 x 24 mtrs in the letter dated 15-7-05, and they have agreed to consider her seniority only in respect of the sites, measuring 15 x 24 mtrs. As the O.P. has admitted this mistake, which was obviously unintentional, we come to conclusion that the complainant has proved deficiency in service only to that extent. Complainant is entitled for direction in this respect.<br /> <br /> 9. Points no. 2 and 3:- Merely because, the application forms are sold at Bangalore through Vijaya Bank Branch, it can not be said that there is “Unfair trade practice. Similarly, withdrawal of the condition, regarding the income criteria can not be called as “Unfair trade practice. Such conditions are uniformly applicable to all applicants. The contention of the O.P. is not covered by definition of “Unfair trade practice” under section 2(1)(r) of the C.P.Act, 1986. It is further contended by the complainant that such applications were sold at Bangalore only to generate huge EMD. This contention is meaningless. There is no inducement or force that people should apply for allotment of such sites. We do not find any “Unfair trade practice” on the part of the O.P.<br /> 10. It is clear that complainant was not allotted any site as per her seniority in Vasanathanagar Layout. Hence, the directions sought by the complainant can not be granted. So, point no.2 and 3 are answered in negative. For the above reasons, we proceed to pass following order:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The main relief sought by the complainant is hereby rejected.<br /> <br /> 2. Any how, O.P. is directed to treat the seniority of the complainant in respect of allotment of site, measuring 15 x 24 mtrs as admitted by the O.P.<br /> <br /> 3. Parties to bear their costs.<br /> <br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br />