MARKETING MANAGER CITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LTD Vs. BALAKARISHNA SHAHANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the order passed by the District Forum, Thane in Complaint No.12/93 directing the appellant CIDCO to allot 18 sq. mtr. tenement under DRS/1987. The appellant has contended that the order is not maintainable inasmuch as in the Demand Registration Scheme, it was specifically given to understand to the applicant that they may give preferences and that those preferences would be observed as stated in the application itself. It was also stated that eligibility and preferences will be considered first. There were inasmuch as 7 locations in the application and it seems that the respondent/complainant had preferred Vashi, Nerul and Koparkhairne as preferable areas. It seems that in the letter dated 29.8.1991, the respondent was allotted tenement at new Panvel and not in the places of his choice. It was specifically stated in the letter of 29.8.1991 that if the area was not given as per preference that was because the application number was picked up by the computers, where all the tenements of desired locations were allotted to others. The option was given to the respondent to withdraw from the scheme and claim refund of the amount with 7% interest. It seems that in the original scheme, the appellant had allotted the tenements as per the scheme and unfortunately the complainant did not get the desired location. By letter dated 17.9.1990, he was found to be eligible and was directed to pay the amount in instalments but the respondent/complainant committed default in that regard. If that be so, we believe that the appellant is entitled to succeed in this appeal. It cannot be lost sight of that there were large number of applications and the preference could be decided only by drawing lots with the help of the computer. The draw was supervised by the competent officers and if that be so, we believe that results given by the computer cannot be faulted. The District Forum fell in error in passing the above order.

(2.) However, before parting with the matter, we may observe that the complainant shall be entitled back to the amount if any deposited with the appellant, which will exclude administrative expenses or other expenses incurred by the appellant. We however, feel that if case, the scheme is available on some other terms, the same may be offered to the respondent/complainant. All the same we believe that the present appeal has to be allowed and accordingly pass the following order. Order

(3.) The appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside and the original complaint is dismissed with however, no order as to cost.