JAI BHAGWAN GUPTA Vs. ESTATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING suffered two adverse orders, initially from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short the District Forum) and subsequently from the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (for short the State Commission), that petitioner Jai Bhagwan has filed this revision petition.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for the allotment of an industrial plot on 30th of November, 1977, for which he had paid the requisite fee of Rs.1000/-. However, he was not given any intimation with regard to any allotment for years together. He made repeated representations over the years but of no avail. Finally, when the opposite party again published an advertisement for the allotment of industrial plots by open auction during 2007 i.e. after a gap of almost 30 years, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party; requesting the District Forum to direct the opposite party to consider his earlier registration and deposit of Rs.1000/- and allot him an industrial plot. In addition, he also sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment and also Rs.50,000/- towards the traveling and correspondence charges. He also prayed for cost of escalation assessed at Rs.7,70,000/-. The complaint was contested by the opposite party, who filed their written version and on consideration of the entire gamut of the evidence before it, the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding as under :-

(3.) THE petitioner/complainant has appeared in person and has argued his case himself. He has been given a patient hearing. In the main thrust of his argument, he submits that the State Commission has not properly applied its judicious mind, inasmuch as it has failed to consider that there was a continuing cause of action and its observation that the present complaint was filed by him on the 4th of June, 2007 after a period of 30 years is not sustainable. According to him, since the amount deposited by him during 1977 was refunded only during the year 2007, the cause of action should have been treated to have been continued until then. That part, he has contended that the State Commission has not considered that the opposite party had suppressed some material facts which would have gone in his favour. In support of his contentions, he has filed a large number of judgments of the Honble Supreme Court and orders of various foras, such as Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Commission and this Commission, on points which are not materially relevant to the facts of the case. THE decisions of the Honble supreme Court and orders of this Commission relied upon with regard to limitation, such as Lata Construction and others Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and another [S.C. & National Commission Consumer Law Cases (1996-2005), pg. 797]; Secretary, THE Dharwad District Cooperative Purchases & Sales Union and Another Vs. Sidlingappa Mallappa Hallad and Another [FA NO. 201 of 1991 decided on 24.04.1992]; and National THErmal Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr. Bhimsain [II (2007) CPJ 108 (NC)], have been passed in the background of a totality of different sets of facts. By giving a list of as many as 23 different judgments/orders of various foras, the complainant has only tried to impress this Commission without understanding that those orders/judgments would only expose him for the desperate attempt being made to rake up a very old case to get an industrial plot just for a deposit of Rs.1000/- in 1977. THE order passed by the State Commission is in very great detail and clearly brings out that even when he applied for the allotment of an industrial plot for the first time during the year 1977, the Director of Industries, U.T., Chandigarh, who was the authority competent to scrutinize and recommend, his case was not recommended by the Director of Industries. During the year 1981 when the Chandigarh Administration again invited applications for industrial plots, the complainant was asked to deposit difference of the earnest money, if he was so interested for allotment of an industrial plot, which he never did. THE chequered history of the case makes it evident that the matter of allotment became a subject matter of dispute between some allottees and the opposite party before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. It subsequently went before the Supreme Court in SLP. On this, the State Commission states as under :- THE writ petition (before the Punjab & Haryana High Court) was decided on 30.8.2001 against which SLPs were filed, which have also been decided on 13.4.2004. THE relief was given only to such of the applicants who were parties before the Honble High Court but the complainant was neither a party before the Honble High Court nor before the Honble Supreme Court of India and therefore, no allotment could be made in his favour.