DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER Vs. TILAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 16.7.2003 of H.P. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla only setting raised part of the order of District Forum dated 9.5.2002 of warding Rs. 2,000/ - as cost. The District Forum had allowed the complaint with directions which being material, are reproduced below : For making good the deficiency in service the complaint is allowed and respondent is ordered to allow the application of the complainant for issuance of licence for running a furniture shop under Himachal Pradesh (Sale of Timber), Act, 1968 within 7 days from today. The respondent (DFO) is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/ - on account of harassment, mental agony and financial loss over 1 year and 7 months and also pay Rs. 2,000 on account of litigation expenses. This amount shall be recovered from the personal pay of the DFO. Let copy of this order be sent to the Secretary (Forest) to the Government of H.P. Shimla for instituting high level inquiry against the respondent (DFO) Mandi who had failed to discharge his legal obligation for the reasons best known to him. -

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Respondent/complainant alleged that he applied for loan to Industrial Department on 16.6.2000. Since he wanted to start furniture shop at Khaliar he took a shop on monthly rent of Rs. 1,000 on 10.6.2000. He submitted that application dated 16.10.2000 which was recommended by the Field Staff i.e. B.O. and Range Forest Officer, on 24.10.2000 to the petitioner/O.P. for issue of licence for running furniture business. Respondent alleged that the petitioner failed to take decision on his application with the result he suffering loss of rent of Rs. 23,000. Alleging deficiency in service he filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by filing written version by the petitioner. Though the receipt of application dated 16.10.2000 was admitted but it was alleged that the matter was examined through the officials of Department and as the until was not found feasible the application was rejected on three grounds. It was pleaded that it was the discretion of the petitioner to allow/disallow the application for issuance of licence for running furniture business to the respondent. It was further alleged that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) nor way any deficiency in service on part of the petitioner as alleged. The District Forum allowed the complaint with the directions noted above observing that the petitioner had neither mentioned the date of rejection of application in the written version nor had he filed the inspection report of the field staff on the basis whereof the application was rejected and the respondent was not informed of the rejection of application. Order of State Commission would show that one of the submissions advanced on behalf of petitioner was that the respondent not being a ˜consumer the complaint itself was not maintainable under the Act as also pleaded in written version. However, the State Commission brushed aside this submission observing it to be irrelevant.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. A.K. Dhatwalia, Adv. for the petitioner.