ASHISH ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought quashing of the communication dated 04.08.2009 (Annexure P-2), whereby the prayer for re-allotment of plot No. 310, Sector 59, Faridabad, was declined. The petitioner was allotted the aforesaid plot vide letter of allotment dated 30.06.1994. The petitioner was to deposit Rs.96,278/-to constitute 25% of the total tentative price. The balance 75% could be paid either in lump sum within 30 days or with interest in installments. The petitioner deposited the said amount vide demand draft dated 28.03.1995 i.e after the expiry of the period contemplated in the letter of allotment. The petitioner also submitted another sum of Rs.5,000/-vide demand draft towards interest on account of delayed payment. However, the said amounts were returned to the petitioner vide cheque dated 03.11.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 20.12.2005. The District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint of the petitioner, but the appeal was accepted by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 31.01.2011. It is, thereafter, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Earlier thereto, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Chief Administrator. On the said representation, the impugned communication dated 04.08.2009 was issued, pointing out that the amount deposited by the petitioner stands refunded vide cheque dated 03.11.1995 and no action can be taken on the representation at this stage.

(2.) We do not find that the petitioner has any right to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The amount deposited by the petitioner was refunded on 03.11.1995. However, the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was invoked 10 years later when the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 20.12.2005. Even if the period spent by the petitioner in prosecuting his case under Consumer Protection Act is excluded, still the present petition suffers from gross delay and laches. There is no explanation, as to why the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court after such delay. Still further, failure to deposit 15% of the amount does not give any rise to any concluded contract. It is so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaman Lal Singhal Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & others, 2009 4 SCC 369. In view of the said fact, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed.