M L SHARMA Vs. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether this State Commission is empowered to issue directions to the Haryana Urban Development Authority for the allotment of a plot to the complainant-consumer by way of relief is the significant question in this case.

(2.) The facts deserve notice with relative brevity in this uncontested complaint, which is being decided ex parte. Mr. M. L. Sharma, complainant herein, is an ex-serviceman, who, apparently having completed his tenure with the defence forces, was now seeking a roof over the head of his family members. Way-back in the year 1986 the Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority (thereafter referred to as 'huda') issued a notification inviting applications for allotment of residential plots in Sectors 23, 23-A at Gurgaon. The Canara Bank at Panchkula was the duly authorised branch so notified for receiving the applications for the allotment of plots aforesaid. The complainant in full compliance with the procedure laid out in the notification, purchased the prescribed application form No.63520 and applied for an 8 Marla plot, along with the earnest money amounting to Rs.4,048/- by a bank draft No.834098 dated the 20th August, 1986, and submitted the complete application as such to the Canara Bank vide receipt No.3075 dated 22nd August, 1986 vide Annexure P-I. The draw of lots for the said applications was fixed for 5th November, 1986, and when the complainant drew a blank therein, he made inquiries with regard thereto. To his great distress and surprise he came to know that his very application had not been included in the draw of lots of all, for reasons best known to the Estate Officer, Gurgaon. Thereafter, the complainant had a protracted travail of representations to various authorities to seek redress for the injustice meted out to him and the loss of opportunity of securing a shelter for himself and his family in an urban area.

(3.) In accordance with the terms and conditions for the allotment of plots, the complainant first represented his case to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, in December, 1986, who, in turn, sent the representation to the Estate Officer, Gurgaon, vide office Endorsement dated 14th January, 1987, seeking a report in the matter along with his comments. No adequate response having been made, the complainant was compelled to make a fresh representation to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, in April 1987, which met the same fate of being sent to the Estate Officer, Gurgaon, for taking immediate necessary action. The latter vide a communication dated 14th May, 1987 required the complainant to produce the bank receipt vide which application along with the earnest money was deposited in the Bank, which was duly complied with. Despite waiting for a considerable time, there was again no response or reply from the said authority thereafter. Yet again on the 15th April, 1990, the complainant vide a written representation requested the Estate Officer, Gurgaon, to look into his genuine claim and annexed all the relevant documents therewith. However, even this failed to elicit any reply from the said authority. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal before the Chief Administrator, HUDA , for seeking justice in the matter, was preferred vide Annexure P2.