1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 18.01.2011 of the State Commission in appeal no. 0964 of 2009 arising out of the Order dated 30.04.2008 of the District Commission in complaint no. 1115 of 1996.

2.       Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner housing board and the learned counsel for the respondent complainant.

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 30.04.2008 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 18.01.2011 of the State Commission and the petition. 

3.       Brief chronology leading to the complaint, as garnered from the material available before us, is that on 28.12.1982 the complainant applied to the petitioner housing board for registration for a house under the economically weaker section (EWS) category and deposited an amount of Rs.500/-. The housing board sent a pre-allotment letter requiring her to pay an amount of Rs.1800/- towards seed / pre-allotment money in two equal installments of Rs.900/- each. The complainant paid the first installment of Rs. 900/- but defaulted in payment of the second installment of Rs.900/- which she had to deposit by 20.11.1987. The housing board issued an allotment-cum-possession letter dated 30.11.1987 to the complainant and allotted a house to her under the EWS category on its then prevalent hire purchase scheme. Vide the said letter of 30.11.1987 she was required to pay an amount of Rs.2384/- (i.e. the first installment of Rs.1484/- towards the cost of the house plus Rs.900/- as the pending second installment of seed / pre-allotment money) within one month from the date of issuance of the said allotment-cum-possession letter. The complainant defaulted in making the payment. The housing board cancelled her allotment vide letter dated 17.05.1988. It thereafter allotted the concerned house to one Mr. Harish Kumar and on receipt of the consideration for the said house from him gave possession of the house to him vide letter dated 27.07.1989. The complainant applied for restoration of her allotment vide letter dated 27.07.1989 stating that she could not deposit the requisite amount by 20.11.1987 due to her weak financial position at that time but now she was in a position to pay the demand, and she requested for allotment of a house on the same terms and conditions. In the meantime the housing board made a change in its policy with regard to restoration of allotments in respect of all applicants. In terms of the revised scheme all restorations were to be made on outright sale basis (and not on hire purchase basis). Vide letter dated 30.05.1994 the housing board informed the complainant that she could be allotted a house on cash payment / outright sale basis and her consent for the same was sought so as to enable the housing board to work accordingly.  The complainant did not agree.

4.       The District Commission vide its Order dated 30.04.2008 allowed the complaint and directed the housing board to allot a house on the basis of the cost prevailing in August 1989 and in hire purchase mode. The housing board preferred appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 18.01.2011 modified the award and directed the housing board to allot a house on the basis of the cost prevailing on 31.11.1987 and in the mode prevailing on 31.11.1987 (i.e. in hire purchase mode).

5        We may first observe that the Orders of both the fora below are nebulously and somewhat incoherently articulated, complete relevant facts are not contained in the either, just as reasoned appraisal of the evidence on facts and law is not evident in the each. Particularly, the State Commission has remained content with only limiting itself to a sole point, whether August 1989 should be taken as the basis of costing or should November 1987 be taken and whether the mode of allotment should be hire purchase or outright sale. Any determinate appraisal of facts and evidence of the case in the requisite exercise of its appellate jurisdiction is conspicuous by its absence, the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal filed by the development authority have been outrightly ignored. In effect the State Commission has proceeded to act as if the only question for consideration before it was confined to the basis of costing and the mode of allotment. The State Commission has shown complete opacity to the fact that it was the development authority which had preferred appeal, as also to the fact that the prayer made was for setting aside the Order itself of the District Commission. 

6.       This is a clear case in which the complainant had admittedly defaulted in paying the second installment of Rs.900/- for seed / pre allotment money as also the requisite regular installment(s) towards the cost of the house. The housing board rightfully cancelled the allotment in 1988 for default in payment. It cannot be faulted on this count. The housing board subsequently made an offer of restoration of registration in 1994 at its then prevalent policy of cash payment / outright sale basis as per its rules applicable uniformly. The complainant did not give her consent. The housing board cannot be faulted on this count also. 

7.       Here we may observe that the housing board is a government authority, it ought to work (as is required and expected to work) as per the prescribed administrative, financial and technical rules laid-down by the government, its accounts are subject to audit, its officials are accountable.  In matters having financial implications a government development authority has to function strictly in accordance with its financial norms and rules.  Matters like allotment and restoration cannot be subjectively decided, either capriciously or whimsically, on a case-to-case basis, they have to be objectively implemented strictly in accordance with the rules, with predictable certainty.

8.       The complainant has not been able to show that the housing board had acted in contravention to its applicable administrative and financial rules, or that it had acted in an unfair or arbitrary manner, or that she has been discriminated against or differently treated in comparison to other similarly situate persons. 

9.       Clearly the District Commission and the State Commission, both, have erred in ordering to the complainant what she never merited, and which neither the facts nor evidence could vindicate. The District Commission’s Order demonstrably suffers from error in appreciating the evidence, and in finding deficiency on the part of the housing board where none existed. The State Commission’s Order suffers from crucial error of limiting its appellate jurisdiction to a sole point of moulding the relief alone and leaving material gaps in its appraisal by altogether omitting any assessment of whether in the first place the complainant had any case at all for claiming, much less than granting, any relief whatsoever.

10.     The petition is allowed and the Order dated 18.01.2011 of the State Commission and the Order dated 30.04.2008 of the District Commission are set aside and the complaint is dismissed. 

11.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.