CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION Vs. KANWALJIT SINGH KOCHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions (02 nos.) have been filed under sec. 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dtd. 14/2/2012 of the State Commission in execution applications no. 17 and no. 18 of 2011 in complaints no. 20 and no. 79 of 1998 which had been decided by the State Commission vide its Order dtd. 28/5/1999.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the Chandigarh Administration and the Estate Officer (the petitioners in both petitions) and the learned counsel for the complainants (the respondents no. 1 and no. 2 in revision petition no. 2657 of 2012 and the respondent no. 1 in revision petition no. 2658 of 2012). No one appears for the Municipal Corporation (the respondent no. 3 in revision petition no. 2657 of 2012 and the respondent no. 2 in revision petition no. 2658 of 2012). We have also perused the record including inter alia the Order dtd. 28/5/1999 of the State Commission in complaints no. 20 and no. 79 of 1998, the impugned Order dtd. 14/2/2012 of the State Commission in execution applications no. 17 and no. 18 of 2011 and the petitions.

(3.) A perusal of the State Commission's impugned Order most obviously shows that it is an Order passed in execution proceedings, and not passed in adjudication of a 'consumer dispute' per se as finds mention in the Act 1986. Its operative paragraph is reproduced below for ready reference: