GURDAS CHAND SINGLA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant - Gurdas Chand Singla of Jind has come up in appeal against the order dated 2nd March, 1996, whereby his complaint against the Haryana Urban Development Authority for the issuance of a direction regarding proper maintenance of amenities and other facilities, especially improvement of the sewerage and drainage system in the locality, has been dismissed as not maintainable under the consumer jurisdiction.

(2.) Complainant had approached the District Forum with the grievance that HUDA was a statutory authority under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and the Legislature has enjoined a duty upon it to provide the basic amenities and facilities of proper sewerage and drainage system and also to complete the necessary developments in the area where the plots have been allotted so that the allottees from whom the development charges have been realised by HUDA should not experience any inconvenience. However, according to the complainant, this had not been done by HUDA in Urban Estate, Jind, where he was residing as an allottee of H-No.2582. In their reply, the HUDA pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable; firstly such a vague and omnibus complaint could not be properly adjudicated under the consumer jurisdiction and secondly because the required amenities i. e. sewerage, water supply, roads and electricity etc. had already been provided in the colony and the sewerage system was smoothly working in front of the house of the complainant. In view of this position, the complaint was dismissed by the learned District Forum.

(3.) In the appeal before us, the complainant has reiterated his submissions made before the learned District Forum and has highlighted various deficiencies in the projects undertaken by HUDA, due to which it is not humanly possible to live in the locality. The gravamen of the charge levelled by the complainant against HUDA is, that due to faulty sewerage system and the failure of the proper drainage and sewerage, the water is stagnating in the locality, which is emitting foul smell and there is apprehension of breaking out of epidemics. After going through the record and the application submitted by the appellant on 23rd August, 1996, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum. However, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to direct HUDA to depute a responsible officer to look into the grievances of the appellant and make earnest and sincere efforts to remove the same as expeditiously as possible. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.