SHANTI DEVI Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 9.6.2000 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow allowing the appeal against the order dated 7.5.1997 of District Forum whereby respondent/opposite party was directed to sanction building plan and pay Rs. 1,000/- by way of compensation to the petitioners/complainants.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. After purchase of plot No. 11, Ram Nagar, Ghaziabad, the petitioners got prepared a building plan and submitted it with the respondent on 27.12.1993 with requisite fee for grant of sanction to raise construction on the plot. However, the respondent did not sanction the building plan. Petitioners filed a complaint before the District Forum which came to be disposed of in the manner noticed above. Appeal taken by the respondent against District Forum's order was, allowed by the State Commission.

(3.) Relying on the decisions in Paresh Nath Baksi & Anr. v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation, III (1994) CPJ 125 (NC), and Hiralal v. The Administrator, Municipal Council, Bhilwara & Ors., 1986-94 National Commission and SC on Consumer Cases 1008 (NS), preliminary objection raised by Mr. S. Kulshreshtha for respondent was that the dispute raised in complaint is not a consumer dispute and, the order under challenge, thus, does not warrant any interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In Paresh Nath Baksi's case (supra), dispute between the parties pertained to renewal of building plan and with reference to provisions of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1951, it was held in para No. 10 of the report (at page 128)