STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the order dated 8.7.1999 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission deciding two appeals only one revision petition has been filed. This is irregular. In normal circumstances, we would have treated this petition only in respect of Gurcharan Singh and not in respect of Mohinder Singh who had filed a separate complaint and after dismissal of the same by the District Forum, had filed separate appeal. Since common question of law and facts arise, State Commission decided both these appeals by the impugned order. We reject the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that one revision was maintainable against an order disposing of two appeals. However, if we direct the petitioner at this stage to file separate revision petition in the case of Mohinder Singh prejudice may be caused. We, therefore, direct Registry to treat this revision petition as two revision petitions and register as Revision Petition Nos. 2128 and 2128A of 1999. The later being revision in the case of Mohinder Singh.

(2.) To decide these two matters we take up the case of Gurcharan Singh. His dispute pertains to allotment of a booth in Phase-I, Urban Estate at Phagwara in the State of Punjab, which was allotted to him on the basis of draw of lots on 16.12.1986. Gurcharan Singh deposited Rs. 1,417.50 being 25% of the price of the booth. Price of the booth was Rs. 5,670/-. He was issued allotment letter on 21.1.1987. Another letter was written to him on 30.10.1991 by the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Jallandhar informing him that he had not paid the balance of the price of the booth. In fact this letter was a 15 days' notice to Gurcharan Singh to make the payment of the balance amount within 15 days, which he did. As a matter of fact, such type of notices were issued to all the allottees of the booths who had not made the balance payment and one such allottee was Ranjit Singh. It may also be noticed that allotment was made in favour of Gurcharan Singh and other being migrants on account of riots after the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India. It was the case of these persons that they could not make the balance payment within the period prescribed in view of their being in dire circumstances and having no source of income. It was submitted that in pursuance of the policy of the State Government by their letter dated 20.12.1989 to provide yet another opportunity to be Sikh migrants, letter dated 30.10.1991 was issued by the Estate Officer of Punjab Urban Estate. Since the amount was deposited as required, Gurcharan Singh and others became entitled to possession of the booth. However, they received a letter dated 25.3.1994 from PUDA (Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority) cancelling their allotment. This led to filing of the complainants which were dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that by the time letter dated 30.10.1991 was written by the Estate Officer he had no authority to do so as the Urban Estate since vested in PUDA.

(3.) Gurcharan Singh and Mohinder Singh filed appeals before the State Commission which allowed the same and set aside the orders of the District Forum. It was held that denial of booths to Gurcharan Singh and Mohinder Singh who were bona fide allottees amounted to deficiency in service and order cancelling the allotment was set aside.