Ajay Pandey vs Raj Kumar Sharma

R.K. Agrawal, President Member

Mr. Ajay Pandey and Mr.Sandeep Ladhania, the two person have filed the present First Appeal under Section 51 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) whereby the State Commission on the Interlocutory Application No. IA/373/2020 filed by the Complainants/Respondents herein had passed an Order directing the Appellants to maintain status quo with regard to transfer and parting with possession of the developer’s share/allocation i.e. entire 1st floor, entire 3rd floor and 50% of 4th floor of the building in question as on today till the next date.  The next date fixed was 09.02.2023.

I have heard Mr. Amit Ghosh, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and perused the Impugned Order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the State Commission, as also grounds taken in the Memo of Appeal and documents filed along with it.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the State Commission had erred in law in granting the interim protection directing the Appellants to maintain status quo with regard to transfer and parting with possession of the developer’s share/allocation i.e. entire 1st floor, entire 3rd floor and 50% of 4th floor of the building in question.  It is not in dispute that the Complainants/Respondents had provided their own land to the Appellants for construction of multi storied building and a Development Agreement was also entered between the Parties in which the 50% proportionate share was allocated to the Appellants herein and 50% share was allocated to the Complainants/Respondents.  It has come on record and it is not in dispute that the Appellants have built up its portion of the building/Apartment and they have handed over very small portion to the Complainants/Respondents.  That being the position, in my considered opinion, the State Commission was justified in passing the Impugned Order dated 01.11.2022 directing the Appellants to maintain status quo with regard to transfer and parting with possession of the developer’s share/allocation i.e. entire 1st floor, entire 3rd floor and 50% of 4th floor of the building in question as on today.  Thus, the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission does not suffer any illegality and irregularity and it has considered all the material available placed before it while deciding the Interlocutory Application.  The Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.  However, I request the State Commission to decide the Complaint Case No.289/2020 expeditiously in accordance with law.