SUDHA NAGLA W/O SHRI ALOK UPADHYAY R/O DR. DAMODAR JOSHI, TAMBAKOO GALI TEJAJI CHOWK BEAWER, DISTRICT Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD THROUGH THE RESIDENT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD, VAISHALI NAGAR, AJMER RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, by the Complainant, is directed against the order, dated 1.3.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur (for short "the State Commission"), in First Appeal No.920/2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has reversed the order, dated 22.6.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.292/2014 and has come to the conclusion that the question of pricing of a flat, allotted by Rajasthan Housing Board (for short "the Housing Board"), could not be examined by the District Forum. The District Forum, while accepting the Complaint of the Petitioner, had quashed the additional demand of Rs. 16,58,976/- raised by the Housing Board, for the house allotted to the Complainant in Gari Thoriyan Residential Scheme, Beayar, District Ajmer, on 21.2.2013. The said additional demand was on account of increase in the cost of land from Rs. 3,990.00 to Rs. 8,060.00 per sq. metre and for additional land @ Rs. 12,090.00 per sq. metre.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, we are of the view that, in the light of the settled legal position on the point, the Revision Petition is without any substance.

(3.) It is trite law that the question of costing or price fixation of the flats/houses or the land by a Public Authority, like the Respondent, is not within the province of the Courts even while exercising power of judicial review under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, unless it is satisfied that the pricing was arbitrary or was determined by applying wrong principles. (see : Smt. Sheelawanti and Anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Anr., AIR 1995 Delhi 212 (FB) , approved by the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ashok Kumar Behal and Ors., (2002) 7 SCC 135. That being so, the said principle would apply with much more vigour to the Consumer Fora. There is nothing on record to demonstrate any kind of arbitrariness, as understood in legal parlance, in fixing the land price.