ALLAHABAD DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DISTRICT COUNSUMER PROTECTION FORUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad through its Vice Chairman and Sri R. K. Singh, Secretary, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad, seek the following reliefs :-

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :- The petitioner No. 1, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Development Authority") is an authority constituted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under the provisions of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. It had constructed certain flats under Sringverpuram Scheme at Allahabad. Vide order dated 8-9-1992, it had allotted Flat No. D-52 to Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta, respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 had deposited a sum of Rs. 6,520/- towards registration and thereafter deposited three instalments of Rs. 35,325/- on 31-10-1992, 29-4-1993 and 5-11-1993. respectively and some other amount, totalling Rs. 1,18,995/- According to the espondent No. 2, after the deposit of amount, referred to above, he went to the site where he found that no activity of any construction is going on. He met the authorities but they could not give any satisfactory reply. The respondent No. 2 thereafter filed an application before the District Forum, Allahabad, which was registered as Case No. 1187 of 1995. The respondent No. 2 sought refund of Rs. 1,18,995/- deposited by him along with interest @ 18% and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental torture and harassment meted out to him for the last three years. Notices were issued by the District Forum and after considering the reply submitted by the Development Authority, the District Forum, vide order dated 7-10-1996, directed the Development Authority to refund the amount of Rs. 1,18,995/- along with interest @ 15% per annum with yearly rests and costs of Rs. 200/-, within two months failing which the rate of interest would be 18@. According to the petitioners, as stated by their counsel, Sri B. B. Paul, before the Court, they have preferred an appeal against the aforementioned order before the State Commission at Lucknow. However, the State Commission has not passed any interim order either staying the operation of the impugned order dated 7-10-1996 or granting any other protection. As the order dated 7-10-1996 was not complied with by the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 filed an application before the District Forum on 21-12-1996 for taking proceeding under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the Development Authority and its officers for not complying with the order dated 7-10-1996. It appears that the District Forum heard the matter exparte on 1-2-1997. Thereafter on 3-2-1997 an application was made on behalf of the Secretary of the Development Authority seeking ten days' time for filing the reply. For reasons best known, the Secretary of the Development Authority did not file any reply or objections whereupon the District Forum vide order dated 3-3-1997 imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and sentenced the Secretary, i.e., the petitioner No. 2, for three months imprisonment.

(3.) We have heard Sri B. B. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. No body has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2. 3A. Sri B. B. Paul, learned counsel, made the following submissions :-