AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the respondent housing board is present.
Mr. Akhilesh, learned proxy counsel for the petitioner complainant requests for an adjournment.
On the previous occasion i.e. on 01.07.2020 no one was present for the petitioner complainant; however, rather than dismissing the petition in default for non-prosecution, the Registrar was directed to list the case again with timely intimation to the parties and to their learned counsel. It has been so listed today, for final hearing.
The complaint was filed before the District Forum in 2010. The instant petition before this Commission was filed in 2013. We are now in 2021.
The request for adjournment is politely declined.
The matter is hereinafter being disposed of on the basis of the record.
The dispute relates to non-allotment of a plot to the complainant and in its stead refund of the earnest money by the housing board after the lapse of the validity period of the waiting list.
The District Forum vide its Order dated 11.01.2012 dismissed the complaint. The State Commission vide its Order dated 25.09.2013 dismissed the appeal.
The State Commission has passed a self-contained well-appraised reasoned Order. It has concurred with the findings of the District Forum. No palpable crucial error in appreciating the evidence, as may cause to require de novo re-appreciation, is visible. No jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible. On the face of it, nothing warrants interference with the impugned Order of the State Commission in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.
It may be added that there is a distinctive distinction between a private builder firm or company and a government development authority. The housing board is a government development authority, it works (/ is required and expected to work) as per the administrative, financial and technical rules prescribed by the government, its accounts are subject to audit.
It has nowhere been shown by the complainant that the housing board committed any infringement of any rule or guideline in his case, nor has it been shown that the housing board has in any manner differentiated between him and other similarly situate persons, nor has it been shown that the housing board adopted any arbitrary or wrong or unlawful or corrupt etc. practice in his case.
The revision, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the petitioner complainant and to the respondent housing board as well as to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission today itself.
P.T.O.
Later on, Mr. Ritesh Khare, advocate and Mr. Palvinder Singh Sarna, advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner complainant appeared on the video conferencing, and were apprised of the Order. They requested that their arguments be heard. The Order had already been passed. The next case had been taken up. Learned counsel for the respondent housing board had left the video conferencing. In such situation the request to argue is not reasonable, and is politely declined.