HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Pinki daughter of Sham Lal

THE order under challenge in this revision petition is that dated 25th August 2009 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in appeal by the petitioner HUDA against the order dated 29th June 2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (in short, ''the District Forum''). THE above-mentioned order of the District Forum was passed by it on execution application No. 305 of 2007 filed by the respondents/ complainants. THE operative part of the District Forum''s order reads as under: "From the above circumstances of the case and report of SMO CHC Pehowa dated 20.04.2009, we come to the conclusion that order dated 15.01.2004 passed by this Forum has not been implemented by the Ops. So, we accept the execution petitioner and allow the DHs to change the purpose of use of site. THE execution petition is disposed off accordingly."

THE respondents in this petition were the complainants before the District Forum and had jointly approached the latter alleging deficiency in service on the part of HUDA in allotting to them the Clinic Sites No.1, 2 and 6 for establishing Nursing Home at the Shopping Centre, Mandi Township, Pehowa. This complaint (No. 381 of 2002) was allowed by the District Forum by its order dated 15.01.2004 with the direction to HUDA to make the sites allotted to the complainants to dust-free or allow them to change the purpose of use of the allotted plots. When HUDA did not comply with the directions of the District Forum, even after its appeal to the State Commission followed by revision petition to this Commission had failed, the complainants/ respondents approached the District Forum with the above-mentioned execution application. THE District Forum, after consideration of the pleadings and evidence, passed the order already noted above. In its appellate order, the State Commission observed as under: "It is pertinent to mention here that the order dated 15.01.2004 passed by the District Forum was upheld by the State Commission in First Appeal No. 968 of 2004 and Revision Petition No. 2198 of 2006 and the opposite parties were ordered to implement the order of the District Forum within a period of 90 days from the date of preparation of copy of the order dated 15.01.2004 and when the opposite parties failed to comply with the order, the complainants moved an execution application seeking direction to the opposite parties for implementation of the order by allowing the complainants to change the purpose of use of the clinic/ Nursing Home site in question or to change the dust-free sites to the complainants. However, while resisting the claim of the complainants in the execution application, the opposite parties filed objection with the averments that the sites in question had been made dust free by way of plantation and spending huge amount at the site. But the objection taken by the opposite parties were proved falsify (sic) from the report of S.M.O., CHC, Pehowa dated 20.04.2009 vide which the site in question was held to be not free from dust as the same is situated near a marriage palace namely Aashirwad and there is a lost of dust around the site. At the same time the letter No. 3413 dated 25.05.2007 and letter No. 4167 dated 29.06.2007, written by the District Town Planner, Panchkula cannot be ignored wherein it was stated that the Decree Holders/ complainants may be allowed to use the site as commercial-cum-residence as there was no other site which could be allotted to the complainants for clinic/ Nursing Home and this fact was also clarified by the opposite party No. 1 to the District Town Planner vide letter No. 9671 dated 27.06.2007. It is also established on record that the opposite party No. 2 vide letter No. 5281-83 dated 09.08.2007 had directed to its administrator to implement the order passed by the Consumer For a in favour of the decree Holders. The opposite parties have miserably failed to prove on record by leading any other cogent and convincing evidence in this regard that the area is free from dust and pollution."

I have heard Mr. R. S. Badhran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents/ complainants. The orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission are self-explanatory. Mr. Badhran was not able to cite any material or evidence which could possibly helped his case but was not correctly considered by the Fora below. The orders in question of both the District Forum and the State Commission are based on proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and material on record and do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, legal infirmity or material irregularity that could warrant interference by this Commission under section 24 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is thus vexatious and seeks to abuse the process of redressal provided for in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is dismissed. HUDA is further directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to each of the complainants/ respondents within four weeks from the date of this order.