Delhi

StateCommission

A/365/2015

DDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT. SHAKUNTLA SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                                         Date of Decision : 11.01.2016

                        Date of arguments heard : 5.01.2016

First Appeal No. 365/2015

(Setting aside the order dated 6.4.2015 passed in Complaint Case No.1192/2012 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum –VI, New Delhi)

 

In the matter of

Delhi Development Authority

Through its Director (H-II)

Delhi Development Authority

Vikas Sadan,

INA

New Delhi

 

……Appellant

Vs.

 

Smt. Shakuntla Sharma

D/o Late Sh. J.R. Sharma

32, Indraprastha Extension

Delhi- 110 092

 

•  

CORAM

 

O.P. Gupta,Member(Judicial)

 

S.C. Jain (Member)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.         This order will dispose of two applications one moved by the appellant and the other moved by the respondent. Appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay in filling the appeal.  The appeal is directed against order dated 6.4.15 passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-VI (New Delhi) in CC No.1192/12 directing the OP to remove encroachment  by removing constructions by neighbors so as to clear the flat of the complainant or in the alternative to relocate the complainant to another similar accommodation in lieu of present allotment.  The appellant was directed to do the needful within three months. The appeal has been filed on 1.8.15. The appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay of 73 days on the ground that copy was received by the appellant by post on 20.4.15.  His Counsel sent the file to SLO (Housing) vide noting dated 22.4.15 who sent the same to SLO (Contract) vide noting dated 24.4.15. SLO (Contract) examined the matter and placed the same before SLO (Housing) vide his noting dated 27.4.15 and then file was sent to Dy. Director (E.H.S). The Dy. Director prepared a detailed note and placed the same before the Director (H-II). Director (H) sent the file to the Dy. Director (Enforcement-Housing). Thereafter, file went from one table to another. The Dy. Director prepared note dated 1.5.15. The Competent  Authority vide noting dated 5.5.15 called meeting of the officers for discussion. Meeting took place on 20.5.15. Thereafter, file was sent to Dy. Director (E.H.S.) Housing who prepared detailed note on 1.6.15. Thereafter, the file was sent to the Higher Authorities mentioned in para 10 of the application. Matter was again examined by the Dy. CLA and CLA. File was sent to the Commissioner (Housing). After other intervening formalities, competent authority took a decision to file appeal vide noting dated 29.7.15.  The Counsel drafted the appeal on 30.7.15. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. The application is supported by affidavit of Director (Housing-II) of the appellant.
2. The respondent has filed a reply raising preliminary objections that copy of application supplied to him was incomplete, shabby and illegible. The District Forum passed interim orders in the presence of both the parties.  According to him, there is a delay of 119 days. The appellant is filing court cases at the costs of public exchequer wherein individual responsibility is required to be fixed for huge lapses and making false statement on oath. Respondent has not filed any affidavit in support of the reply.
3. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that order under challenge is interim order against which remedy is revision & with appeal, there is no limitation for filing revision, appeal may be treated as revision. In support of this submissions be relied upon decision of this Commission in DDA Vs. A.V. Raghvan III (2015) CPJ 295.
4. The appellant has relied upon decision in State of Jammu & Kashmere V. Mohd. Makbul Sofi (2009) 15 SCC 177,, State (NCT of Delhi) V. Ahmed Jaan Judgement Today 2008 (10) SC 179, State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO AIR (2005) SC 2191 and G. Ramegowda, Major V. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AIR (1998) SC 897.
5. In Ahmed Jaan Vs. State, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 13 that certain amount of latitude is therefore not impermissible to functioning of government. Delay of one year was condoned in that case.
6. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10289 of 2014 titled as ATS Govinda Rajani Vs. Chief Manager, SBI decided on 14.11.14 held that delay of 149 days in filing revision against order of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission ought to have been condoned in view of the decision in Manoharan Vs. Shivarajan (2013) 14 scale 347 and State of Bihar Vs. Kameshwar Pd. Singh (2000) 9 SCC 94. The said decision was followed by the National Commission in RP No. 3591 of 2009 titled as Chief Post Masters General Vs. Pooja Gupta decided on 8.12.14.
7. The respondent has not made specific denial of the averments made in the application. The reply is not supported by affidavit. The reply does not make any head and tail. He has referred to decision in Ravinder kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar AIR 2004 SC 904 which contains observations regarding court being careful to see that a diabolical plan of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. The same does not pertains to limitations at all. He has also referred to decision in RP No. 2761/2012 titled as K. Pydi Naidu . Vs. Maddi Ramanujayya decided by National Commission on 16.10.12.
8. After completion of arguments and reserving matter for orders, Counsel for the respondent filed copies of extract of decisions in DDA Vs. Kishan Lal Nandrajog (2004) 13 SCC 614, Kishan Kant Singh Vs. Sasaram Bhabhua Central Coop. Bank Ltd. (2010) 15 SCC 555, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tata Refractories Ltd. (2005) 12 SCC 442. Without facts of those cases the judgments can not be applied or distinguished.
9. Law regarding condonation of delay must be construed liberally so as to advance justice and decide the case on merits rather than throwing them out on technicalities, hence the application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
10. The other application is by respondent for vacation of stay granted on 25.8.15 against the impugned order dated 6.4.15 passed by the District Forum. The application does not contain any date and is not supported by any affidavit. The application recites that matter was listed for admission of appeal. On first hearing without hearing the complainant, stay was granted by single Administrative Member. The matter was listed at item No. 5.  In second round the matter was not called. Even in third  round matter was not called. Matter was called at the end of board and the Counsel for the complainant was not heard who was waiting for this matter for the entire day. The copies provided to the complainant were shabby and fully illegible.
11. We are unable to impress ourselves with the application. At the stage of admission it is not necessary to listen the  respondent. Administrative Member, sitting singally can grant the ex-parte stay in case of urgency. The impugned order in the present case had the effect of demolishing of property of neighbor who were not party in the District Forum and were not heard. Said neighbor has moved an application for impleading him as party in the present appeal which is pending. The execution of impugned order could have serious effect and could not be allowed to be executed without standing the scrutiny of appeal. Execution of that order would have made the appeal infractuous.
12. The Counsel for the appellant rightly pointed out that case before the District Forum was ripe for final arguments. Pleadings were complete. Both the parties have filed written arguments. There were other issues like limitations, complainant not being consumer etc. Passing of interim order at this stage was itself objectionable.
13. In the above circumstances, the application for vacation of stay is dismissed.
14.         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge.

 

(O.P. Gupta)
Member (Judicial)

 

 

(S.C. Jain)

Member