Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority for quashing the complaint No. 57 of 1992 filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as ''Commission'').

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant had purchased the plot in dispute in an auction sale and there is no element of hiring of service and this transaction will not fall under the Consumer Protection Act. In order to fortify his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Ashok Tayal and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authorities and others, 2 1995 C.P.J. 3 .

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the case law, we find merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of Ashok Tayal''s case (supra), we hold that the Commission has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter.

For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed and the proceedings in complaint pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana are quashed.