NAGAR PALIKA, NEEMUCH Vs. SHARMILA GOKHARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been invoked in order to challenge the order dated 20.3.2008 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal (for short the State Commission). The operative part of the said order reads as under:

(2.) The State Commission on a consideration of the matter has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-Nagar Palika. We have heard the learned Counsel representing the petitioner and we propose to dispose of this revision petition on admission stage itself. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Nagar Palika has urged before us that Fora below had over looked the affidavit dated 2.9.1985 (copy at page 17 of the paper book) filed by the respondent at the time of applying for the allotment of plot and on the strength of para 1, it is contended that the respondent was not eligible for allotment of a plot of land because family member of the respondent, her father, namely, Mishri Lal Ji was already holding a plot of land in Neemuch. We have recorded the submission only to reject the same because it appears to us that that the authorities of the petitioner-Nagar Palika had been interpreting the expression family as it is used in common parlance as a legal term. Respondent was a major unmarried self-dependent woman engaged in a vocation, and, therefore, neither she was a dependent member of the family of Mishri Lal Ji nor her father was dependent on her. The affidavits produced by the respondent, therefore, represented the correct factual position and the petitioner was not justified in cancelling the allotment on the ground that a dependent family member was holding a plot within the limits of Neemuch Nagar Palika. The order passed by the Fora below is eminently justified and does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which calls for any interference by this Commission. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. In our view, Nagar Palika ought not to have agitated this issue once again before this Commission and for that reason we should burden the Nagar Palika with cost of Rs. 5,000. We direct the Nagar Palika to deposit the said amount in Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within four weeks from today. Revision Petition dismissed.