SAROJ BALA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -APPELLANT was the complainant. Plot No. 2110-A, Sector-4, Gurgaon was sold in auction by the respondent/opposite party-Authority to one Kuldeep Singh Bakshi on 23. 2. 1889 for a sum of Rs. 4,81,603. Amount of Rs. 54,000 was deposited by Sh. Bakshi at the time of bid. He was to pay Rs. 66,402 within 30 days from the date of receipt of allotment letter so as to make 25% of the price of the plot. Balance amount was to be paid in instalments as mentioned in the allotment letter. Amount of Rs. 66,402 was deposited by Sh. Bakshi on 20. 3. 1989. Sh. Bakshi executed General Power of Attorney in regard to the said plot in favour of one Iqbal Singh from whom the appellant purchased the plot along with construction raised thereon. Vide memo No. 869 dated 22. 1. 93 the plot was resumed by the respondent-Authority after serving show-cause notice (s) on Shri Bakshi as he had failed to pay balance 75% in six half-yearly instalments. Against resumption, appeal was filed by Shri Bakshi before the Administrator, HUDA. By the order dated 17. 7. 98, the plot was restored and auction purchaser was required to deposit Rs. 16,36,378, which was not deposited and rather a complaint was filed by the appellant challenging this demand which was contested by filing written version by the respondent. Pleas taken in written version need not be referred to here in detail. The State Commission dismissed the complaint on the grounds of appellant not having locus standi to file it and complaint not being maintainable in view of auction purchaser having availed of the remedy before the Administrator and he not having challenged the order of Administrator by filing appeal before the Secretary, Urban Town Planning and/or writ petition before the High Court. In regard to first ground it was noticed that the General Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by Sh. Bakshi in favour of the appellant was not produced by her. Along with revision petition, the appellant has now filed copy of General Power of Attorney executed by Kuldeep Singh Bakshi in favour of the appellant dated 15. 10. 1997 concerning the plot in dispute.

(2.) SUBMISSION advanced by Ms. Ruchira for the appellant is that in view of Clause 21 of the allotment letter (copy at pages 24 to 26) the complaint is maintainable under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) it being additional remedy. Clause 21 which is material, reads thus:

(3.) COPY of the order passed in appeal against resumption of the plot filed by Kuldeep Singh Bakshi, by the Administrator dated 17. 7. 1998 is at pages 31 and 32. Amount of Rs. 16,36,378 demanded by the respondent which was challenged by the appellant in the complaint was, calculated by the Authority pursuant to this order dated 17. 7. 1998. Validity of this order of the Administrator cannot be assailed before the Consumer Fora and the remedy was to file appeal against it before the Secretary, Urban Town Planning and/or to writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Provision contained in Section 3 of the Act cannot be invoked to challenge the said order. Two decisions rendered by this Commission referred to in the order of State Commission, support the above conclusion reached by me. State Commission had, thus, rightly non-suited the appellant on ground of complaint not being maintainable under the Act. There is no infirmity in the impugned calling for interference under Section 21 (a) (ii) of the Act. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.