Delay of 19 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

Delhi Development Authority, which was the opposite party has filed this revision petition.  The brief facts of the case are that the respondent – Resident Welfare Association (RWA) was allotted a flat by the petitioner on the condition that Rs.50/- for LIG flat and Rs.200/- for MIG flat were to be paid, respectively towards installation of water meter.  However, after due payment, water meters were not installed.  Later residents were charged flat rates Rs.20/- for LIG flat and Rs.25/- for MIG flat but from May, 1994 to May 1995, Rs.567/- was charged for MIG against Rs.225/- and Rs.442/- was charged against Rs.180/- for LIG flat which was against the adjacent pockets I to IV and the water supplied was unfit for human consumption.

Aggrieved by this, the respondent – RWA filed a complaint with the District Forum.  District Forum after taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence on record, dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent on the ground that the charges were for meter security and not for installation of meter.  The administrative control of pocket No. I to IV, was with the MCD and the administrative control of pocket V in which the respondent are the owners of the flats was with the DDA.  Two different authorities such as DDA and MCD were charging different rates of water.  Residents of pocket V and that of pocket Nos. I to IV were not equally located and, therefore, the respondent was not being treated unequally.

Respondent being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum holding that a person similarly placed could not be treated differently.  Residents of pocket  I to IV and the residents of pocket V could not be treated differently.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the control of pocket V was handed over to the MCD in the year 2001 but till 22.3.2001 respondents were governed by DDA Rule, which is a different authority and question of treating equally has not arisen as the residents of pocket V were governed by different sets of Rule than the resident of pocket I to IV. 

We agree with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.  The question of equal treatment would arise only if the two sets of persons treated differently under the same Rule. 

In the present case, the respondents were governed by the DDA Rule whereas pocket I to IV were governed by MCD Rules.  State Commission has clearly erred in holding that the resident of pocket V were to be treated equally and the two different authorities could not have their separate sets of Rules.  Order passed by the State Commission is incorrect and is, accordingly set aside.  Order of the District Forum is restored. 

After handing over the control of pocket V to  MCD on 23.3.2001, the residents should be governed by the sets of Rule of residents of pocket V and would be treated on the same terms as the residents of pocket I to IV.   No order as to costs.