PADMAVATI BAI Vs. CHAIRMAN HOUSING BOARD HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant has come up in appeal against the order dated 9.2.1996 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak, whereby the complaint of Smt. Padmavati Bai has been dismissed against the Housing Board, Haryana, in which she had complained about the deficiency in service on the part of the Housing Board, Haryana.

(2.) According to the complainant, she is the wife of one Sh. Mahadeo, an employee of the State Bank of India, posted at village Dhanas Housing Colony, Union Territory, Chandigarh. She applied for the allotment of a MIG house at Rohtak to the Housing Board, Haryana on the basis of her husband being an employee of the Central Government/board or Corporate Body working under the control or supervision of the Haryana Government. Her application was rejected by the Housing Board, Haryana as neither she nor her husband was eligible. Aggrieved against that, she approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak, but her complaint has been dismissed.

(3.) In the present first appeal filed by the complainant-appellant, the only argument advanced by the' learned Counsel for the appellant is, that the State Bank of India is a Board/body Corporate controlled by the Central Government, hence, the complainant was eligible for applying to the Housing Board, Haryana for the allotment of a house at Rohtak.