DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL) Vs. J.P. GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 14 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

(2.) ON merits, the case of the complainant who is respondent herein, is that he was allotted plot under the re -location scheme by the petitioner/OP for self -employment for the purpose of setting up small -scale industry and that the entire amount was paid by him well within the time by executing all the necessary documents and submitting the same to the OP vide his letter dated 17.12.2002. The OP was also requested to hand over the physical possession of the plot vide said letter but it could not hand over the physical possession of the plot since the plot was not ready for delivering the possession. The grievance of the complainant is that he was compelled to pay Rs.16,250/ - and Rs.1,250/ - respectively towards the watch and ward charges to avoid cancellation of the plot before handing over the possession of the plot by the OP. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, he filed complaint before the District Forum for directing the OP to refund the amount of Rs.17,500/ - charged towards watch and ward charges together with interest. On being noticed, the OP/petitioner failed to appear before the District Forum and hence it was proceeded ex parte vide District Forums order dated 14.6.2005. On appraisal of the issues and the documents filed by the complainant, the District Forum did not find any merit in the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant and dismissed the same. Being aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the respondent/complainant carried the same before the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal and accepted the complaint and hence the present revision petition challenging this order dated 5.4.2006 passed by the State Commission.

(3.) WE have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. It has been vehemently argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was passed by the State Commission without issuing a show -cause notice and without giving any opportunity to the OP to respond to the appeal and yet allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint of the complainant and directing the petitioners to refund the watch and ward charges. The impugned order of the State Commission, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. We agree with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and would normally have preferred to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the State Commission for deciding it afresh according to law after hearing the parties. However, in the absence of such a request being pressed by the parties and considering the fact that this matter pertains to a complaint filed in the year 2005 and both the parties are present and have been heard at length by us on merits, we decided to dispose of the matter on merits rather than remanding it to the State Commission which would delay the decision in the matter further.