NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2037/2010

RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

OM PRAKASH (D) THROUGH LR. SMT. MANISHA SOLANKI - Opp.Party(s)

MR. BADRIDAS SHARMA

20 Aug 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2037 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 01/01/2010 in Appeal No. 1899/2007 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR.Through the Chairman, Jyoti NagarJaipurRajasthan2. THE ESTATE MANAGER-CUM-DY. COMMISSIONERCircle-I, Rajasthan Housing Board, Pratap Nagar, SanganerJaipurRajasthan ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. OM PRAKASH (D) THROUGH LR. SMT. MANISHA SOLANKIR/o. E-15, Near Sindhi Dharamshala, Pratp Nagar, Jodhpur, Ramdwara, Ghodon-Ka-ChowkJodhpurRajasthan ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 20 Aug 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. There is a delay of 49 days in filing the appeal. In this respect, an application has been filed for condoning delay and the reasons for condoning delay are found in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application. One of the reasons given is that the Officer-In-Charge could not come to Delhi as he was extremely busy in official work. This ground can by no stretch of imagination be said to be sufficient to condone the delay. The other ground given is that the petitioner had got the Hindi documents translated into English. No details or explanation has been given relating to how many documents are got translated from Hindi to English and how much time it required for translations. The reasons given are only general reasons, which cannot be accepted for condoning delay. On this count alone, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Even on merits, no case has been made out for interference in the order of the State Commission. In fact, the District Forum had directed allotment of MIG flat at the prevalent as on 6.5.2002 on payment of balance amount and had awarded cost of Rs.3,000/-. The State Commission had modified the said order to the extent that the rate would be charged as prevailing on 22.10.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the complainant has not applied for a flat even though he was asked to do so which shows that the present petitioner was otherwise willing to allot a flat. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that any case has been made for interference in the impugned order of the State Commission. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINEETA RAIMEMBER