A SRINIVASA MURTHY Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is not present at the time when the case is called for hearing but his absence is understandable because he has sent a letter dated 3rd August, 1990 requesting that an amicus curie advocate should be engaged by this Commission at State expense to conduct the case on his behalf. There is no provision for engaging an advocate at Government expense to conduct the case on behalf of any party and hence this request of the appellant cannot be complied with.

(2.) WE have gone through the records of the case including the Order of the State Commission and the Memorandum of appeal. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the State Commission that the complaint against the opposite party the Bangalore Development Authority cannot be legally sustained since the essential pre-requisite of the existence of an arrangement of hiring of service for consideration is totally lacking in this case. It has been held by this Commission in F.A. No. 2/89 Consumer Unity and Trust Society v. State of Rajasthan that the payment of tax which goes into the general revenues of the State or local authority will not legally constitute payment of consideration for any specific service. The State Commission has rightly applied to this case the dictum laid down in the said order. The Order of the State Commission is accordingly confirmed and this appeal will stand dismissed.