HUDA vs HARSH VARDHAN SOOD

CHALLENGE in this revision is to the notice of penalty dated 30.8.2006 issued under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986), which has been termed as an order passed in Execution Petition No. 40 of 2006 arisen out of the Complaint No. 273 of 2000 titled as Harshvardhan Sood v. HUDA, as illegal, unwarranted, bad in law in utter violation of the principle of natural justice and Rule of Audi-Alteram-Partem and also contrary to the laws and rules, without jurisdiction and non est.

IN order to decide the present revision petition, the essential facts need to be focused briefly. The District Forum, Panchkula while deciding the Complaint No. 273 of 10.10.2000, as per order dated 2.3.2006 issued the following directions to the petitioner-opposite parties. : "(a) To issue the formal allotment letter in respect of Plot No. 606P/19, Panchkula and not to charge any interest on the delayed payment of instalment which can only accrue from the date of offer of possession letter. (b) To pay 10% interest on the deposited amount w.e.f. 26.3.1992 till offer of possession. (c) Also pay Rs. 1,000 as costs of proceedings. Let the order be complied with within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order."

As the above directions were not complied with, the complainant filed the present execution application before the District Forum with prayer that action be taken against the petitioner-opposite parties and notice of penalty under Section 27 of the Act, 1986 was issued under the signature of the President of the District Forum, to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula requiring him to appear before the District Forum, Panchkula on 20.9.2006 at 11.00 a.m. and to show cause as to why the penalty be not imposed upon him under Section 27 of the Act, as he has failed to comply with the order dated 3.3.2006 passed in Complaint No. 273 of 2000. It is against this notice the present revision petition has been filed. Learned Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.

At the first instance, learned Counsel representing the petitioners pointed out that the District Forum should have rejected the application because perusal of the application dated 31.5.2006 would real that the complainant has sought the compliance of the order bearing No. 285 dated 3.3.2006 passed by the District Forum because no such order has been passed. While making this submission the contents of this application have not been read in its entirety. The complainant has specifically mentioned the Complaint No. 273 with the date of institution 10.10.2000 and date of decision as 2.3.2006. It has been specifically stated in para No. 1 of the application that while deciding the complaint the relief mentioned in Para Nos. 1(a) to (c) has been allowed by the District Forum. Definitely, there is a typographical error while giving description of the order No. 285 dated 3.3.2006, but that is inconsequential because of the order so passed by the District Forum. Therefore, there is no force in the submission made. Further it has been contended by the learned Counsel representing the petitiones that the notice of penalty had been signed by the President of the District Forum, Panchkula whereas it was required to be signed by the President and at least one another member and for that reason this notice of penalty was against the mandatory provisions of Sections 14(2) and 14 (2A) of the Act, 1986 and was liable to be set aside. In support of the stand taken reference was made to the cases. A. Sampath v. Commissioner, Hubli Dharwar Municipal Corpn., 1991 CPC 624; Haryana State Electricity Board v. Inder Singh; M/s. Modern Rice Mill Machinery Co. v. Sushil Kumar Mondal, 1994 (1) Con.LT 179, 1997 (2) Con.LT 294; and M/s. Volvo India Limited v. M/s. Pragati Road Lines Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2005 (2) CPC 444. Learned Counsel representing the respondent-complainant has opposed the submissions made primarily on the ground that notice has been issued under the signature of the President in order to comply with the order passed by the District Forum and under the law this notice is not required to be signed by all the members or atleast by two Members of the District Forum.

IT appears that the petitioners have not challenged the order passed by the District Forum by which the District Forum has decided to issue notice of penalty under Section 27 of the Act, 1986 to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula. Therefore, simply because a notice of penalty has been signed by the President of the District Forum cannot be construed that any illegality has been committed by the District Forum in terms of the provisions of Sections 14(2) and 14(2A) of the Act, 1986. In fact, the present revision petition is wholly misconceived and incompetent without challenging the order of the District Forum in pursuance of which notice of penalty has been issued to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula. Consequently, there is no force in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. R.P. dismissed.