Executive officer, Nagar Palike Mandal vs State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Counsel submits that the matter was initially taken up at the Consumer Forum, however, attained finality after the decision passed by the National Commission upholding the order passed by the state Commission dt. 30/11/2006 (Anx.2). The operative part of the order of the State Commission, which is relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced here as under:

mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZ dh vihy vkaf''kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkus ;ksX; gS A vr% vihykFkhZ dh vihy vkaf''kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk vyksP; vkns''k fnukad 15-05-1998 fuEu izdkj la''kksf/kr fd;k tkrk gS&

1- izR;FkhZ&foi{kh ^^ifjoknh& vihykFkhZ dks clUr fcgkj ;kstuk esa Mh&134] Mh&143] Mh&145] Mh&216] Mh&235 esa ls ,d Hkw[k.M mlh dher ij vkaofVr djsxk] tks dher foi{kh us ifjoknh ls iwoZ esa vkaofVr IykV la[;k ,&14 gsrq 833-3 oxZxt ds fy, olwy dh FkhA

2- bl izdj.k esa izR;FkhZ vihykFkhZ ls 833-3 oxZxt ls vf/kd nh tk jgh Hkwfe dh dher dks vkt ls vkjf{kr nj ls olwy djsxkA

3- ifjoknh&vihykFkhZ }kjk fnukad 04-03-1975 dks tek djkbZ xbZ 5]000@& :i;s dh jkf''k ij oSdfYid Hkw[k.M vkaofVr djus dh frfFk rd 06 izfr''kr izfro"kZ dh nj ls C;kt vnk djsxkA

4- tgka rd ifjokn O;; dk iz''u gS] bl laca/k esa vkyksP; vkns''k iq"V fd;k tkrk gSA

5- nksuks i{kdjku vihy dk [kpkZ viuk&viuk Loa; ogu djsaxs

Counsel submits that the plots, which have been mentioned by the State Commission in its order falling in Scheme Basant vi har are measuring 111.11 square yards and Plot No. D-134 i s measuring 240 square yards but the then authority of the Municipal Council, Jhunjhunu projected before the state Commission that these plots are measuring 1000.00 square yards each which is factual ly incorrect. However , after the judgment of the state Commission was affirmed by the National Commission, there was no other al ternative available with the petitioner but to file review application before the State Commission seeking clarification about the factual position in regard to the existing size of the plots which are available in compliance of the final order passed by the state Commission referred to supra but the review application filed by the petitioner has been rejected without appreciating the factual aspect of the matter on the premise that the order of the State Commission being affirmed by the National Commission, the review application is not maintainable, is not legally sustainable.

Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to approach the National Commission where the remedy lies as observed by this Court but the consumer forum is bent upon to take punitive action against the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, Jhunjhunu and if reasonable time is not afforded to the petitioner to seek remedy before the National Commission, prejudice will cause to him.

Taking note of the submissions made and perusal of the record, which is always subject to the appreciation to be made by the competent authority but at the same time this Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, would like to observe that the respondent No. 2-District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhunjhunu is restrained from taking coercive action against the petitioner for a period of two months and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the National Commission against the order Anx. 7 dt. 04/05/2010, if so advised.

With these directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.