AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEARD Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant. None present for the complainant-respondent.
THE sole grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that though he was sanctioned an additional loan of Rs. 90,000/-, besides Rs. 1 lakh which he had availed earlier, only a sum of Rs. 45,000/- was disbursed to him towards first instalment and the second instalment of Rs. 45,000/- was not released. It was alleged that because of the arbitrary and mala fide action of the opposite parties, he sustained loss. The opposite parties took the defence that the amount of Rs. 45,000/- from out of additional loan was not disbursed because there was complaint from the public before the Government and the Vigilance Department referred the matter to the Chairman of the Corporation to take up enquiry as to whether the amount of Rs. 45,000/- from out of the additional loan has been properly utilised or misutilised. Our attention is drawn to Annexure C/2 and to the petition of some persons of Bhadrak Town addressed to the Chairman of the Corporation which indicates that the construction of the building of the complainant was not at all undertaken.
Mr. Mishra''s, contention is two-fold. First, the complainant does not have any cause of action against the appellant-Corporation since the Corporation is not rendering any service. Secondly, instead of utilising the loan for construction of a house for residential purpose, the complainant utilised the loan for commercial purpose and, therefore, the complaint petition was not maintainable.
WE, however, do not accept this contention of Mr. Mishra, because the Corporation having granted the first instalment and also the subsequent instalment of Rs. 45,000/- it would not be proper to take such a stand at this stage. So far as the second point about the terms and conditions of the loan, admittedly the condition prescribed that the loan advanced should be only for construction of house for residential purpose. In para 7 of the show cause the O.P. No. 2 pleaded that the Under Secretary to Government, G.A. (Vigilance) Department, under letter No. 8150 dated 29.9.1997 addressed to the Chairman of the Orissa Co-operative Housing Corporation Ltd. requested to report about the utilisation of loan taken by the complainant. The appellant deputed a Senior Officer for a detailed enquiry. But there is nothing in the show cause as to what was in the result of such enquiry.
MR. Mishra has drawn our attention to Rule 5(21) of the Rules of Finance of Orissa Co-operative Housing Corporation where it has been mentioned that no loan shall be sanctioned for construction of building by any individual for commercial purposes. However, a loan may be sanctioned for construction of residential portion of a shop-cum-residential building subject to condition that this building should not be given on rent to a non-member and without the prior permission of the Society/Corporation. Mr. Mishra however have put strong reliance under Annexure E/2 the enquiry report of one J. Dutta, Deputy Manager (Establishment) dated 24.3.1998 and submitted that the complainant deviated from in carrying on construction as per the terms mentioned above. On going through the report we find the said Deputy Manager, Establishment to have mentioned as follows : "The ground floor consists of 6 rooms for shopping purpose and no residential zone is there and the first Floor is constructed up to above plinth level. The only cause I find the money released for the specific purpose i.e., residential building is utilised for commercial purpose. But the money given to the loanee is required."
There is nothing adverse in the enquiry report. The plan submitted is found to be one for single storeyed shop-cum-residential building. There is nothing wrong to go for commercial purpose in the ground floor and using the first floor as residential purpose. It normally happens everywhere. We would not like to comment, this could be said to be any deviation. That apart the officer has mentioned that the money given to the loanee is secured. We do not find there is any infirmity in the order of the District Forum in giving a direction for release of the next second instalment. We agree that non-release of the second instalment is an arbitrary act, since no material is placed before us to hold that the complainant has in any way misutilised the fund by spending the first instalment for any other purpose etc., except an allegation that has not been proved. The appeal is dismissed. No cost. The order should be complied with within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. Appeal dismissed.