HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. FATEH SINGH CHOKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a complaint filed by the respondent, the Consumer Forum quashed demand of Rs. 44,740 as penalty and extension fee of Rs. 13,980. It was further directed that the present petitioner shall issue completion certificate to the respondent in respect of plot in question and release sewerage connection to him. This order was challenged by the present petitioner before the State Commission. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the both sides. The respondent had purchased plot in the year 1997 as per Conveyance Deed Exb. C2 dated 31.3.1997. Two years period was given for completion of construction work. Accordingly, the construction work was to be completed by 31.3.1999. But the complainant had already completed construction in the year 1998 and applied for completion certificate on 23.12.1998. The petitioner was clearly wrong in asking for extension fee of Rs. 13,980 for the year 1998 on the ground that completion certificate had not been obtained. The sewerage connection was denied which again was totally unjustified.

(3.) THE petitioner had also demanded compounding fee of Rs. 44,740 after carrying out the inspection. Report of inspection is at Annexure P1 at pages 8 -9 of the record. There is nothing on record to show that the copy of the site inspection report was furnished to the respondent or that the respondent was directed to show cause as to why action should not be taken for violations recorded in the site inspection report. The site inspection report shows certain violations for which compounding fee of Rs. 44,740 was fixed. How the said amount was calculated and on what basis, is nowhere disclosed. No show cause was given to the respondent as to why compounding fee for alleged violations should not been levied on account of failure in following the principles of natural justice. The demand made by the petitioner cannot be sustained. The Fora below have come to a right conclusion and the demands made were totally unwarranted and unjustified on account of which reliefs were granted to the respondent. Both, the District Forum and the State Commission have given detailed and cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion. We have absolutely no reason to take a different view of the matter.