CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD Vs. SURJIT SINGH SANDHAWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Chandigarh Housing Board, was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/complainant Shri S.S. Sandhawalia & Anr. had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

(2.) The facts leading to filing the complaint were that the complainant being Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on his being transferred to Patna High Court, requested the Governor who is also the Administrator of U.T. Chandigarh to allot him a residential house or accommodation, for which he made an application. Thereafter a letter indicating an intent to allot a house was issued by the appellant on 8.12.1989. It needs to be made clear that this offer was subject to furnishing information whether the complainant or any other member of the family possessed any other plot/dwelling unit made available through any Board/Corporation or Development Authority. On 12.10.1990, the complainant informed the appellant Board that he is in possession of Flat No. 382, Ground Floor, Pocket 'C' Sarita Vihar, New Delhi in the self-financing scheme of Delhi Development Authority (DDA), which he has purchased at the prevalent market price. Nothing happened till 11.1.1994, when the offer of allotment of dwelling unit allotted to the complainant in Manimajra, was revoked and the earnest money of Rs. 20,000 was refunded.

(3.) It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The complaint was contested by the appellant/opposite party and the State Commission after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record allowed the complaint after holding that since by order of Administrator he had shown his willingness to accommodate the complainant by relaxing rules as they were in force on that day, the subsequent cancellation at the level of Officer(s) of the Board without the knowledge of Administrator/the whole Housing Board, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party. The State Commission also held that letter dated 11.1.1994 revoking the allotment is non est in the eyes of law. According to the State Commission, the matter had to be decided at the appropriate level and the complainant is entitled to an opportunity of being heard. With these directions the complaint was allowed. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us.