APPLE MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS complaint has been preferred by a registered association by name - The Apple Merchants Association (Regd.), New Subzimandi, Azadpur, Delhi through its Secretary, Shri Harbans Lal.

THOSE arrayed, as Opposite Parties in the complaint are : (1) Delhi Development Authority, (2) Administrator (L.G.) of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, (3) The Administrator of Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board, (4) Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Delhi through its Secretary and (5) Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner. From the averments contained in the complaint petition as well as in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties, it is seen that in the year 1971-72 allotments of certain shops and flats were made by the Delhi Development Authority in the New Subzimandi, Azadpur on leasehold basis in favour certain eligible persons. None of those persons to whom the shops and flats were allotted have joined in filing this complaint petition nor have they made any representation alleging any deficiency in respect of the shops/flats allotted to them on lease. The Complainant association had been given 11 sheds in Transport Centre only on licences in August, 1980 on payment of licence fee in advance at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. feet per month. These sheds were allotted purely on a temporary basis and it was expressly stated in the allotment letter that the allotment can be revoked at any time "without assigning any reasons". It is clear that the complainant association has defaulted in making payments of licence fees for the period subsequent to 3.13.1984 whereupon it was served with a show cause notice calling upon it to remit the licence fee stating that on failure to comply with demand, the licences will be cancelled but the said payment was not made/complied. It is the case of the D.D.A. that the retention by the Complainant Association of the possession of the sheds thereafter was wholly unauthorised.

THE grievance put forward by the Complainant is that the Respondents are not discharging their duties of providing the promised facilities to the Complainants as occupants of the sheds. In our considered opinion the dispute between the parties is in respect of the mutual rights and obligations of the parties herein arising out of a transaction of grant of licences in respect of immovable property belonging to the Development Authority. The said dispute is not one concerning either any transaction of sales of goods or hiring of services for consideration and it cannot, therefore, be regarded as a ''consumer dispute'' as defined under the Act. Hence, the approach made by the Complaints seeking relief under the Consumer Protection Act is clearly misconceived.

THIS Petition will stand dismissed on the aforesaid limited ground. The parties will bear their respective cost.