AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE amount involved in this case is very small. Moreover, there are findings of the District Forum and the State Commission of fact. THEse are concurrent findings with which we are not inclined to interefere. Lastly, the basic fact is that the respondent did not produce any evidence in the shape of affidavit or oral evidence or documentary evidence. THE allegation of the complainants is that exorbitant amounts of expenditure which were shown by the respondent were in fact not correct and have gone uncontradicted. THE State Commission had particularly noted that no bills or vouchers justifying the disbursement of the material have been placed. On these facts, the allegation of the complainants went uncontradicted.
THE complainants belong to the weaker sections of the community. THE scheme under consideration was floated to help the backward people. We cannot go on adjourning the case and giving notice to the people belonging to backward areas to come to Delhi from Andhra Pradesh for small individual''s amounts of Rs. 1,500/- or Rs. 2,000/-. We are not inclined to inferfere with the order passed by the State Commission. An apprehension has been expressed that this will be a bad precedent and thousand of people will come with similar grievance. We see no reason for this apprehension. If other cases are filed, what the Housing Board is to do is to produce evidence or produce vouchers or bills to satisfy the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, that the money figures of expenditure shown by them were truly and really spent by them for the purpose for which they were meant to be paid. THE revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.