SANJAY BANSAL Vs. HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether Sec.50 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 is a jurisdictional bar to the entertainment of a consumer dispute by the redressal agencies under the Consumer Protection Act? This is the threshold question.

(2.) For the limited purpose of disposing of the preliminary objections raised by the opposite party, it is unnecessary to delve deeply into the facts. It suffices to mention that the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the HUDA) has been constituted for undertaking urban development in the State of Haryana and for matters ancillary thereto, as the very preamble on the Act indicates. In view of the numerous decision of this Commission its activities come squarely within the ambit of the consumer jurisdiction. The complainant had applied for a residential plot No.189 in Sector 14 of a scheme promoted by the HUDA at Hissar. In his complaint, he clams the relief of the delivery of possession of the said plot with massive ancillary relief by way of damages and compensation as also interest at the rate of eighteen percent.

(3.) In the reply filed on behalf of the opposite party a number of preliminary objections have been raised. However, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, their learned Counsel has primarily pressed the plea that Sec.50 of the HUDA Act bars the jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain the complaint and further that by virtue of para 8 of the application form, the complainant must first resort to the arbitration clause therein. In elaborating his stand, Mr. Sharma has contended that Sec.50 in terms provides for the finality of all orders and directions passed by the HUDA or the State Government, and the Civil Courts have expressly been barred from entertaining any suit or proceedings, in respect thereof. Counsel had firmly argued that all redress, in this context must be sought within the frame work of the HUDA Act alone.