AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
DEFICIENCY in service is grievance of the complainant.
CASE of complainant is that he obtained a piece of land on lease from Paradip Port Trust. Since the said land was not convenient for the purpose for which it was leased out, he wanted exchange of the land. When such exchange was not accepted, he has approached this redressal agency for a direction to Opp. Parties 1 and 2 who are officers of Paradip Port Trust. Their case is that lease once granted is final. Complainant challenged the action in O.J.C. No. 4058 of 1990 which High Court without entertaining the writ application gave liberty to the complainant to place his grievance before the Chairman of the Paradip Port Trust for reconsideration of the matter. Accordingly, complainant made a representation and the Chairman, after carefully considering the said representation has given the conditional offer and accordingly, there is no deficiency in service. Ft is not disputed that the lease was sanctioned by the Board. Therefore, in fitness of things, Chairman should not have taken a decision. He ought to have placed the representation before the Board, to consider whether the exchange would be permitted on payment of excess money.
Therefore, without going into the technical objections raised by the Senior Legal Assistant of the Paradip Port Trust who has been authorised to present the case of the two opposite parties before us, we direct the Chairman to place the representation of the complainant in the next sitting of the Board with his own view if he so desires and the Board shall pass a resolution as is deemed proper supporting the same by reasons which shall be communicated to the complainant within one month of the decision of the Board.
WITH the aforesaid direction, this complaint is disposed of. Complaint disposed of. _______________