By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Complaint in short is as follows: -
1. The complainant alleges the first opposite party denied service and not complying orders of the government and not providing service which the complainant entitled. The act of the opposite party amounts partiality, offensive and deficiency in service.
2. The complainant submitted application no. A4-4765 on 20/07/2021 for a building number. As per the circular of government of Kerala, dated 16/07/2015 the opposite party is liable to issue acknowledgment for the same within one week and be informed the proceedings initiated on the application and the same is to be disposed within three months. The complainant submit that the first opposite party is liable to issue building number within 30 days from the date of application i.e. 20/07/2021 which is therein in the letter issued by the Local Self-Government Department and the same prescribes 10 days for issuing building number .
3. The complainant alleges the first opposite party responding towards the complainant with revenge since the complainant had filed complaints before the consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. The opposite party had issued acknowledgement for the application to get numbered the building which was applied on 10/09/2021 and informed that the number will be provided on 29/09/2021. The complainant claims that he is a whistle blower and as such he files complaints in response to the same. The first opposite party filed a complaint before the police stating that the complainant appeared before the opposite party without bearing mask. The complainant thereafter approached the district superintend of police since he had not gone to the Panchayat on that particular day and demanded to examine visions from CC T V and other relevant documents. The complainant filed a complaint against the Kuttipuram Police before the police complaint authority stating the fact and informing the date as 13/05/2020 on which the complainant approached the grama panchayat. Then the first opposite party deposed before the authorities that the complainant approached the first opposite party office and made nuisance to the staff of the first opposite party from morning to evening. The complainant submitted that he can prove that he approached the first opposite party on 13/05/2020 only after 3.30 evening only. The first opposite party wilfully directed the assistant secretary of the panchayat to file the false complaint against complainant. Thereafter the assistant secretary approached the complainant and other concerned parties to withdraw the complaint. The complainant had filed complaint number 388/2018, 158/2020, 138/2018, EA 187/2018, EA 195/2018, AP 690/18 and the question how much expense was paid from the grama panchayat for the concerned counsels were given contradictory answers. In one reply was no fee has given, another answer was paid Rs.7,000/- and another reply was paid Rs.4,000/. The complainant can establish his allegations through examine the concerned persons. The complainant submitted that he submitted 20 documents to establish the right of ownership regarding the saw mill and to implement the decision taken on 20/04/2021 and to establish that the sawmill is not belong to Bava Sharfudheen. The complainant also submitted that the first opposite party acting partially in favour of Mr. Bava Sharafudheen and to prove the same he is prepared to produce further 15 documents. The complainant submitted the notice dated 10/09/2021 to establish the approach of the first opposite party in the matter of his application dated 05/05/2021. The complainant further submitted that the counsel appearing for the first opposite party is none other than the friend of the opposite party who is giving the legal opinion to protect the interest of opposite party. The complainant produced document to show that so far, no legal fee has been provided by the opposite party during the year 2018 ,2021.
4. The complainant submit that a complaint is maintainable before Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported as 2019 (4) KLT 71 (SC) SLP (C) No.4272 of 2015 and connected case. The complainant further quotes the wordings of scientist Albert Instine and also submit that he is fighting against injustice with his amputated leg. The Hon’ble National Commission also had laid remarkable decision contenting that the delay in providing information under Right to Information Act also comes under the purviews of the Consumer Protection Commission. The complainant further submit that if any government employee caused laches and negligence and which results inconvenience and hardship to any consumer the concerned employees also personally liable for their act and the Commission has to consider those aspects in fixing liability hence
5. Hence, the prayer of the complainant is to direct the opposite party to act up on the application and take appropriate action on application A4-3355 dated 05/05/2021. The complainant also prays for appropriate action against the opposite parties including directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-.
6. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the first opposite party and the first opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party contended that the complaint is not maintainable, ill motivated, absolutely baseless, legally unsustainable and without any bonofides. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed.
7. The first opposite party submitted that Mr. Mohamed Haneefa, Rarankandth applied on 20/07/2021 for commercial purpose as A2/2765/21. The same was referred to AE of LSGD to ensure the building follows KPBR 2009 rules and a report was also received by the opposite party that the building is complied the same. But during the relevant period the concerned staffs, secretary, junior superintendent were affected Covid Pandemic and they were not in position to provide due service. Meanwhile the brother of the applicant Mr. Jouhar Ali Raramkandth filed a complaint as SC 3/337/21 dated 24/09/2021. In that complaint it was stated that Mr. Jawaharlal, his mother and brothers has got right over the property and the documents submitted belongs to himself and the property adjacent to the same are belonging to other members of the family. The survey number mentioned in the applications of the complainant and Mr. Jouhar were same. Hence a notice was issued to the concerned village officer requesting the details of the land but so far, no reply has been received from the officer. Meanwhile an order has been received from Ponnani tahsildar on 26/11/2021 as per G1-7234/2020. As per the report from the taluk tahsildar nearly 76.31 are land is comprised in R.S No.503/1 of Thavannur Amsom Thrikkanapuram as per document 1705/87 of SRO, Edappal and in which the property stands in the name of Rarankandath Kunhahamed Haji’s, Children-Muhamed Haneefa , Ummer Koya, Usman Koya, Jawhar Ali, Bava Sharafudheen and fathima. It is also stated that the land tax is paying in the name of Mohamed Haneefa and that 3.87 Hector land stands in the name of Rarankandathil Mohammed and children. The same has been registered through different document in the name of children. All the properties are laying together and there is dispute between the owners of the land. The disputed building claim to be the complainant is not laying in the properly comprised in document No.3911/95 and it is submitted by the brother Jawharali that it is a misleading representation. Hence the building number was cancelled and the same was informed to the complainant.
8. The cause of action stated in the complaint is false. The first opposite party and the staff of the grama panchayat are doing sincere efforts in performing their duties. The panchayath has got ISO certification for the best service to public and the panchayat is getting very good opinion among the public. The complainant submitting utter false hood before the Commission. The complainant not submitting applications before the grama panchayath which are not at all come under the purview of service act. All the petitions are related to the family dispute between Bava Sharfudhen and the complainant. Most of them are being baseless with false hood and even then, the opposite party is regularly giving reply. Thereafter also the complainant filed this sort of complaint repeatedly not only before the opposite party but also before police station and other government institutions. The opposite party duly giving answers and duly receiving applications from the public and there is no laches from the side of opposite party. There is no laches from the other employees of the opposite party. The issue of the complainant has come before the board of gram panchayat and before the staff meeting the complainant regularly misusing the Information act and threatening the opposite party and the staff. The opposite party further submitted that there is no any sort of deficiency in service from the side of opposite party and there was no occasion of none providing of service to the public. The allegation of the complainant that due to various complaint filed by the complainant resulted enemity between the complainant and the opposite parry is baseless. The challenge of the complainant that he is being a whistle blower that he can establish various defects of the opposite party is false. The opposite party further submitted that the submission regarding the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is not relevant in the matter. The opposite party had issued reply to the complainant and there is no any sort of defamation or financial loss sustained to the complainant. There is no any sort of misbehaviour from the side of opposite party towards the complainant. The above are being the facts the complainant is not entitled any relief and so liable to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.
9. While pending the complaint one Mr. Ranandkandath Jouhar Ali, S/o Kunhimuhamed filed an application 351/22 to get him impleaded as party in the proceedings. Though the complainant opposed the IA, it was allowed and he was impleaded as second opposite party in the matter and he filed version also.
10. The second opposite party denied the entire averments in the complaint and raised the issue whether the complaint can be considered by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. According to second opposite party the dispute must be considered by Civil Court for the proper adjudication of the dispute.
11. The second opposite party submitted that the complainant filed complaint which is baseless and meant to realize some illegal benefit by pressuring the first opposite party and for the purpose the present complaint has been filed before the Commission. The dispute is with respect properties belong to himself and his brothers. The complainant filed complaint A4-4761 before the first opposite party suppressing the real facts and producing false documents. The attempt of the complainant is to get relief from the first opposite party on the basis of false document in time bound manner and if that is not received from the first opposite party he is threatening the first opposite party and his staff and also preferring complaints before higher authorities. The second opposite party further submitted and incident that he filed an application as A4-3293 seeking permission to construct a shed or running a petty shop to a poor man which was interrupted by the complainant by approaching the first opposite party through a manipulated complaint. The second opposite party submit that children of late Kunhimuhammed Haji has got property worth 210 cents of land which is duly de marketed by boundaries and the property is in possession of the parties and enjoying the benefits. He further describes various proceedings on the property and the dispute is pending before the concerned court. The basis for the complaint is dispute between the complainant and the family of the second opposite party. The second opposite party further explained the decisions rendered in CC 297/2021 of this Commission itself. The reading of version of the second opposite party definitely reveals long pending civil dispute between the complainant and the second opposite party with respect to landed properties and buildings.
12. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents and they are marked as Ext. A1 to A38 and Ext. B1 to B36 respectively.
13. The contention of the complainant is that there is denial of service from the part of first opposite party and an approach of none obedience of government orders and directions. We have carefully gone through the averment in the affidavit of the complainant and the opposite parties. The commission also has gone through the decision produced by the complainant in SLP (C) No.4272 of 2015 of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Punjab Urban planning and development authority (Now Gladda) Vs Vidhya Chethan. Though as per the decision the commission has got jurisdiction to interfere in the matter of service rendered by the first party like authorities, if that service not exclusively part of discharge of sovereign functions. The decision remained that sovereign functions are undergoing a radical change in the light of privatizations and globalization. India Being a welfare state, the sovereign functions are also changing. Hence it is to be considered the government in order to improve the quality of welfare of its citizen, has under taken many commercial adventures. So, the welfare activities through economic adventures undertaken by the government or statutory bodies are governed under the jurisdiction of the consumer Forums.
14. But the present case is different from the case cited by the complainant. In this complaint there is an apparent civil dispute between the complainant and second opposite party and the first opposite party is not able to provide the service as desired by the complainant. The delay happened in disposing the petitions of the complainant cannot be treated as deficiency in service and a will full or partisan act. That being the fact behind the complaint it will be proper to adjudicate the dispute before the appropriate authority. The procedure before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is prescribed as summary one and wherein voluminous documents and evidence which require due appreciation cannot be entertained. So, it will be proper to approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of the grievance of the complainant and so the present complaint stands dismissed accordingly.
Dated this 8th day of March, 2022.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A38
Ext.A1: Government circular No.11433/A.R 13(2)/2015, dated 16/07/2015.
Ext.A2: Mode of Applications for the buildings regarding permits nil dated.
Ext A3: Copy of statement regarding the service right under 2012 Act.
Ext A4: Acknowledgment receipt from Tavnur Grama Panchayat application dated
10/09/2021 service delivery date 29/09/2021
Ext A5: Copy of intimation regarding violation of lockdown directions dated
20/05/2020/ Kuttipuram police station
Ext.A6: Copy of letter from the police dated 18/10/2020 issued to the complainant.
Ext.A7: Copy of statement given by the secretary Mr. Abdul Kareem Tavanur Grama
Panchayat before the police Kuttipuram
Ext A8: Copy of information issued from the Tavanur Grama panchayat under
Information Act.
Ext A9: Copy of information issued by the grama panchayat to the complainant
dated 04/05/2021.
Ext A10: List of documents submitted before the secretary Tavanur grama
panchayat on the basis of decision taken on 30/04/2010
Ext.A11: Copy of letter issued by secretary Tavnur grama panchayat to the
complainant dated 06/09/2021
Ext.A12: Copy of application under information Act submitted by the complainant
before the opposite party .
Ext A13: Copy of judgement reported as 2019 (4) KLT 71-AIR 2019 SC 4357-ILR
2019(4)Ker 141-(2019)9SCC 83.
Ext A14: Copy of letter issued from village office Tavanur to the secretary Tavanur
grama panchayt
Ext A15: Copy of location map dated 10/12/2022
Ext.A16: Location certificate issued by the village officer Tavanur 10/12/2021.
Ext.A17: Plan of the property dated 02/07/2018
Ext A18: Copy of non-attachment certificate 07/12/2021.
Ext A19: Copy of complaint filed by grama panchayat members before the grama
panchayat president dated 30/04/2020.
Ext A20: Copy of complaint submitted before DDP by the complainant against the
Secretary grama panchayt dated 20/12/2021
Ext.A21: Copy of arrest warrant issued from CDRF in the matter CC189/2016 in ST
187/2017 dated 17/02/2018
Ext.A22: Copy of arrest warrant issued from CDRF in the matter CC189/2016 in ST
187/2017 dated 02/03/2018
Ext A23: Copy of arrest warrant issued from CDRF in the matter CC189/2016 in ST
187/2017 dated 19/05/2018
Ext A24: Copy of arrest warrant issued from CDRF in the matter CC138/2018 in ST
195/2018 dated 13/11/2019.
Ext A25: Copy of arrest warrant issued from CDRF in the matter CC138/2018 in ST
195/2018 dated 19/12/2019.
Ext.A26: Copy of arrest warrant issued from CDRF in the matter CC138/2018 in ST
195/2018 dated 25/02/2021.
Ext.A27: Copy of complaint submitted before Revenue Minister dated 28/05/2021.
Ext A28: Copy of appeal submitted by the complainant before Grama Panchayat
Tavanur
Ext A29: Copy of letter seeking legal opinion dated 29/06/2022.
Ext A30: Copy of letter seeking legal opinion dated 12/08/2022.
Ext.A31: Copy of order of ombudsman Local Self Governments dated 22/07/2022.
Ext.A32: Copy of letter issued by the secretary Tavanur Gram panchayt to the
Complainant dated 16/08/2022
Ext A33: Copy of letter issued by the secretary Tavanur Grama Panchayt to the
complainant dated 19/08/2022
Ext A34: Copy of license agreement dated 01/04/2021.
Ext A35: Copy of legal opinion dated 12/08/2022 issued by Adv. Nandakumar
Ext.A36: Copy of location sketch dated 05/03/2022.
Ext.A37: Copy of plan revealing the document numbers dated 30/10/2022.
Ext A38: Copy of complaint submitted before the Village officer by the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B36
Ext.B1: Copy of application A4-3293/21 dated 19/04/2021 filed by Jouhar Ali to the
secretary Tavanur Grama panchyat (7 pages )
Ext.B2: Copy of letter issued by the secretary Tavanur Grama panchayt to Mr.
Jouhar Ali dated 22/05/2021.
Ext.B3: Copy of application submitted by the Mr. Jouhar Ali submitted before
secretary Tanur grama panchayt dated 27/10/2021.
Ext.B4: Copy of document 1205/1987
Ext.B5: Copy of judgement in OS 213/97, Munsiff magistrate Court Ponnani
Ext.B6: Copy of location sketch.
Ext.B7: Copy of document No. 497/98.
Ext.B8: Copy of relevant page stating the endorsement in the document by Mr.
Mohammd Haneefa and the witness.
Ext.B9: Copy of tax receipt dated 20/04/2021.
Ext.B10: Copy of judgment in OS 86/2000 Munsiff Magistrate court Ponnani
Ext.B11: Copy of survey sketch.
Ext.B12: Copy of proclamation and judgement / Wakf Tribunal Kozhikode.
Ext.B13: Copy of notice issued from Taluk office to Mohamed Haneeafa and 6 others
dated 05/02/2021
Ext.B14: Copy of notice issued by Mr. Jouhar Ali Ali to the Thahsildar Ponnani .
Ext.B15: Copy of field sketch dated 02/07/2018.
Ext.B16: Copy of letter issued by the Thahsildar Ponnani to Mr. Jouhar Ali dated
30/06/2022
Ext.B17: Copy of survey reports dated 02/02/2018.
Ext.B18: Copy of survey sketch Tavanur Village field no.495/1B,503/1,504/1B,513
Ext.B19: Copy of document No.3911/95.
Ext.B20: Copy of document 385/95
Ext.B21: Copy of document 878/72.
Ext.B22: Copy of Patta No.2060/78LT Ponnani.
Ext.B23: Copy of cash receipt issued from Tirur cooperative Land mortgage bank date
22/03/1974.
Ext.B24: Copy of document 3942/95
Ext.B25: Copy of document No.384/95
Ext.B26: Copy of application submitted before the Village officer Tavanur by Mr.
Aboobacker for possession certificate dated 16/10/2018.
Ext.B27: Copy of legal opinion issued M A M Rafeefq Advocate to the secretary
Tavanur Grama Panchayth dated 03/09/2021.
Ext. B28: Copy of letter from secretary Tavanur graapma panchayat to Mr.
Bavasharafuhdeen dated 06/09/2021.
Ext.B29: Copy of appeal submitted by Aboobacker before the grama panchyath
Committee Tavanur dated 29/09/2021.
Ext.B30: Copy of decision of Tavanur grama panchayat dated 28/10/2021.
Ext.B31: Copy of notice issued in RP 60/21/Local Self Government administrative
Tribunal.
Ext.B32: Copy of order in CC/138/2018, CDRF, Malappuram dated 04/09/2018.
Ext.B33: Copy of location sketch No.235/22Tavanur Village.
Ext.B34: Copy of proceedings of Secretary Tavanur Grama panchayat dated
16/09/2022.
Ext.B35: Copy of notice from Taluk Legal service authority Ponnain in PLP 4822.
Ext.B36: Copy of decision held in unusual Tavanur Grama Panchayat board meeting
dated 31/01/2020
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
