HOUSING BOARD, HARYANA Vs. SAT PAL JODHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, petitioner has challenged the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon which has been confirmed by the State Commission. The only question for consideration before the District Forum was whether the respondent had income of Rs. 1,500/- when the salary showing in the certificate inclusive of basic pay, DA, etc. is Rs. 1,478/-. The criteria was a person who has the income of Rs. 1,500/- p.m. It is evidenced that the respondent was paid a sum of Rs. 2,400/- as ad hoc award for the financial year 1986-87. If it is divided by 12 that could yield an additional average income of Rs. 200/- per month which clearly place him in the criteria which qualifies the respondent for allotment of the plot. Counsel submitted that the ad hoc payments are not taken into consideration. He is not able to cite any ruling or law which would support such a contention. In fact having accepted this level of income petitioner had already allotted a house to the respondent on 25.5.1988. It was after a long delay in February, 1996 that a show-cause notice asking the petitioner why the allotment letter is not cancelled, was issued and thereafter the allotment was cancelled on 9.9.1996 and a departmental appeal was also dismissed on 15.5.1997. It was in the light of these facts that respondent had gone to the District Forum with a complaint and the District Forum had arrived at the correct decision in upholding the entitlement of the respondent and setting aside the cancellation of the allotment. The Appellate Court also rightly upheld the original decision and dismissed the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. Revision Petition is dismissed.