Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad vs Madhu Shukla

THESE Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 05.01.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ''State Commission '') in Appeal No. 986 of 2011, vide which the State Commission has directed that the possession of the shop in question may be handed over to the complainant/respondent within a period of two months and also she should be given interest @ 9% on the amount, which is lying in deposit with the petitioner/Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow.

THIS single order shall dispose of both the petitions in question and a copy of the same may be placed on each file. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/opposite party No.1-Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow invited applications for registration for construction of shops in ''Apna Bazar '' Fruit, Flower and Vegetables Market Scheme (Phase-III) in Gomti Nagar, Lucknow from 01.01.1997 to 31.01.1997. The complainant/respondent No.1-Madhu Shukla made application for the allotment of a shop in Super Bazar under the Scheme and deposited a sum of Rs. 43,075/- as registration money. She was informed vide letter of opposite party dated 30.4.1997 that the registration had been affected and the allotment money of Rs. 43,670/- should be deposited. The said amount was deposited by the complainant and further vide letter dated 29.07.1997 from the opposite party, allotment of shop No. 96 was made to her. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,72,802/- with the opposite party against the total cost of construction of the aforesaid shop i.e. Rs. 1,72,300/-. However, the possession of the shop in question was never given to the complainant on the ground that due to various reasons, the construction of shop No. 96 in the Scheme had not been possible. The opposite party allotted another shop No.53 in the same market to the complainant, but she refused to accept the said allotment saying that shop No. 53 was smaller in size as compared to shop No. 96. Another question then arose that one of the shops from shop No. 80 to 91 could be allotted to the complainant, but the opposite party took the stand that these twelve shops had been earmarked for Government functionaries. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite party in the District Forum, which passed an order on 19.4.2011 saying that the possession of shop should be given to the complainant within thirty days at the old prescribed rates and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to take care of mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses should also be given to her.

AN appeal was filed by the opposite party/present petitioner before the state Commission, which vide impugned order, directed that the possession of the shop may be handed over to the complainant within two months. It is against this order that the present petitions have been made by the opposite party.

AT the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that shop No. 53, in place of shop no. 96 had already been allotted to the complainant and a letter to this effect had also been issued on 01.08.2011. However, the complainant had refused to accept the allotment of said shop. Further, shops No. 80-91 had been kept reserved for Government Departments and could not be allotted to the complainant. Out of these twelve shops No. 80-91, 10 shops had been reserved for the Rural Developemnt Department under ''Swarn Jyanti Gram Vikas Swarojgar Yojna '' and two shops had been kept by the petitioner Department themselves. It is clear therefore that these shops had been reserved keeping in view the public interest. Moreover, the value of these shops had also risen sharply during the past few years and one of these shops was sold to the complainant at old rates, it shall put the Department to huge financial loss. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the delay of 37 days in filing the petition stated that the impugned order was passed on 05.01.2012 and at that time, General Elections had been declared in the State and the staff of the Department had been put on election duty. The Director of the Department had also been made an Election Observer. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that there is no valid ground for the condonation of delay in the present case. None of the staff from the petitioner Department had been put on election duty. Moreover, the election in Lucknow had been held on 16.02.2012 but the petitioners were sitting idle and did not take any action in the present case. In the second petition, there was a delay of 69 days in filing the petition.

IT has further been stated on behalf of the respondent No.1 that the respondent/complainant was a valid allottee of the shop under the Scheme and the money deposited by her had been lying pending with the Department for a number of years. She was therefore, entitled to get the shop under the Scheme and hence it was clear that the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum were valid in the eyes of law.

WE have examined the entire material on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. In Revision Petition No. 2168 of 2012, there has been a delay of 37 days in filing the petition, whereas in revision petition No. 2421of 2012, there is a delay of 69 days. The petitioners have tried to give explanation for delay by saying that the State machinery was busy with the elections being held in the State and hence they could not take timely action for filing the petitions. However, the plea does not seem to be based on any sound reasoning and these petitions deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Now coming to the merits of the case, it is an admitted fact that Smt. Madhu Shukla gave an application for the allotment of a shop under the said Scheme and deposited the amounts in question as demanded by the petitioner from time to time and the said money has been lying deposited with the petitioner for a long time. She was also given allotment of shop No. 96 but due to the non-availability of proper site or other reasons, it was not possible for the petitioner to construct the said shop. The petitioner also made allotment of an alternative shop, but the same was smaller in size as compared to the one already allotted. The complainant refused to accept the allotment of the said shop. As per the current situation, however, it is very clear that the twelve shops with numbers 80 to 91 are lying constructed under the Scheme and they are stated to be reserved for Government Departments by the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that ten of these shops are meant for the Rural Development Department under some National Scheme and two of these shops are for the petitioner Department. However, looking at the entire circumstances of the case and the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, we find it appropriate that one of these shops should be allotted to the complainant and the Government Departments could bear with the remaining eleven shops. The District Forum as well as the State Commission have also ordered that one of the shops should be given within the prescribed time. The State Commission has also ordered that interest of 9% should be paid on the amount lying in deposit with the petitioner. We do not find anything wrong with this part of the order as well.

7.BASED on the discussions above, we find that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity from any standard. The same is therefore upheld and the present revision petitions are ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.