SHANKAR BIRMIWAL Vs. J D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHANKAR Birmiwal has filed this complaint against the opposite-parties on 16-10-89 under s. 12 read with s. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) for various reliefs. The complainant who is a practising lawyer gave a bid on 29. 7. 87 in the auction of a plot which way held by Jaipur Development Authority (JDA ). The complainant was declared the highest bidder. He deposited Rs. 60,619/- within time. Remaining three-fourth amount was to be deposited on the confirmation of sale for which a demand note was to be issued by opposite-party No. 1. This was to be done in accordance with demand note-cum-confirmation of sale letter dated 31. 7. 87. The power of attorney holder submitted cheques before the Secretary for a sum of Rs. 1,81,857,25 on 29. 9. 87. The cheques were not accepted on the ground that part payment cannot be accepted. Thereafter an application was submitted before opposite-party No. 1 for the correction of the demand note. It may be mentioned that the demand note dated 31. 7. 87 which was issued envisaged an amount of Rs. 794. 35 (Sahari Jamabandi) and Rs. 25/- (Site Map fees ). Thus a balance of Rs. 1,82,676. 60 was demanded. The complainant submitted the cheques after deducting the aforesaid two amounts as these amounts could not have, been demanded by opposite-party No. 1. However, demand note was not corrected and contrary to it despite reminders opposite-party No. 1 informed the complainant by its letter dated 6. 2. 88 that the amount deposited by him stands forfeited and the auction of the plot was cancelled. An appeal was filed before the JDA, Tribunal. The Tribunal held in its order dated 3. 8. 88 that the Sahari Jamabandi amount could not have been demanded by the authority nor a sum of Rs. 25/- demanded as site plan charges could be demanded as opposite-party No. 1 had no legal authority to demand such amounts. The appeal was however dismissed by the JDA, Tribunal on 3. 8. 88. Thereupon, the complainant filed writ petition. No. 2700/1988 in the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench Jaipur. The writ petition was dismissed on 21. 12. 88. After that the compliainant had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India, which is said to be still pending. The complainant has filed this complaint praying that the complainant has suffered tentative loss to the tune of Rs. 1,00. 000/- in addition to the interest amount besides the mental agony. The following reliefs have also been sought :- 1. that a specific direction be issued against the respondent to hand over the possession of the plot after granting the patta and allow him to raise construction so as to have the user of the plot. 2. that the complainant has prayed for the award of costs amounting to Rs 10,000/-

(2.) PHOTOSTAT copies of the documents Anx. 1 to Anx. 5 were submitted. True copy of the order of the High Court marked as Anx. 6 was also submitted. After registering the complaint it was ordered that a notice may be issued to the complainant to appear before the State Commission to satisfy that the complaint can be entertained and heard by the State Commission despite the order dated 21. 12. 88 passed by the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench,jaipur in D. B. Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 2700/1988. In pursuance of that appearance has been put on behalf of the complainant by Shri P. C. Jain, Advocate. Learned Counsel for the complainant was heard on the question regarding the maintain ability of the complaint.

(3.) WITHOUT prejudice to his right to resort to any such remedy the complaint is rejected. Order pronounced on Jan. 5, 1990. .