SUNIL KUMAR vs Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab

THIS common order shall decide both the revision petitions, detailed above, which are between the same parties as common question of law and facts of law arise.

THERE is delay of 196 days in filing both the revision petitions. In both the cases, the petitioner has moved applications for condonation of delay. The delay is explained in paras 2, 3, 4 and 5, which are reproduced as under: ''''2. That the petitioner is aggrieved since the State Commission passed said impugned order dated 08.11.2012, whereby it has disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner on the statement made by the counsel for the respondent that wires in dispute will be got shifted by the Respondent within 6 months and the grievance of the Petitioner will be redressed.

That it is pertinent to mention here that the counsel for the respondent had made a statement during the course of the First Appeal No. 817 of 2008 qua the fact that the wires in dispute will be got shifted by them within a period of six months. The petitioners kept on waiting for the removal of the wires, electric poles and transformer within six months. Though the petitioner had removed the wire on 04.08.2013 but the electric poles and transformer have still not been removed. The petitioner approached to the respondent and requested them to comply with the order in its true letter and spirit but they kept on assuring the petitioner that they will comply with the order.

That the period of six month granted to the respondent expired on 07.05.2012 thereafter the period of limitation commenced on 08.05.2013 and the same expired after lapse of mandatory 90 days ( i.e. 05.08.2013) consequently a delay of 65 days has occurred in filing this revision petition since the petitioner repeatedly approached the respondent for compliance of the impugned order dated 08.11.2012 as the respondent deliberately avoided the compliance of the said Order even after the expiry of the 6 months period specified in the impugned Order and on persistent efforts of the petitioner, the respondent just before the expiry of the mandatory 90 days, on 04.08.2013 removed only the wires leaving the poles and the transformer on the said land rendering it unusable.

That the petitioner again after vigorously perusing with the respondent for complying with Impugned Order for 30 days from the date of removal of the wires (i.e. 04.08.2013) subsequently approached his counsel at Chandigarh, who in turn after drafting the present petition send it to his Associates for filing this petition with this Hon ''ble Commission. The aforesaid delay has occurred due to the facts stated above and the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioners and the petitioners will suffer a lot if the aforesaid delay is not condoned.

This must be pointed out that the petitioners had purchased the houses in an open auction held on 4.10.2006. The District Forum allowed the complaint. The State Commission partly admitted the claim. The State Commission vide its order dated 8.11.2012 passed the following short order: ''''Sh. Sandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab alongiwth Sh. Joginder Singh, Law Officer of the respondent made a statement that the wires in dispute will be got shifted by the respondent within six months as the respondent had already received the Estimate from the P.S.P.C.L. vide letter dated 12.10.2012. The counsel for the appellants also made that the appeal may be disposed off as per the statement of Sh. Sandeep Singh, Advocate. The counsel for the respondent requested that the compensation and costs awarded by the District Forum may be waived off. As the counsel for the respondent made the statement that the wires will be got shifted within six months and the grievance of the appellants will be redressed, as such, the compensation and costs awarded by the District Forum is waived off. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. ''''

IN support of the case, on both these issues i.e. on condonation of delay and on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the judgment of this Commission in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. Vs. Suneja & Sons, revision petition NO. 2951 of 2009, decided on 18.8.2011. In para 22 of the judgment, it was held: ''''22. There is considerable force in the submissions of Mr. Pattjoshi regarding insufficiency of the grounds cited by the petitioners for condoning the long delay of 144 days in filing this revision petition. Prima facie, the causes cited by the petitioners in their application are to better than mere narration of the labyrinthine journey of the file/s in the process of decision -making, without any supporting documentation and cannot be said to constitute ''''sufficient cause '''', under Section 24A of the Act, to warrant condonation of such a long delay. However, the revision petition raises some important points of law that have wider ramifications and it would be desirable in the interest of the consumers as well as the Development Authorities like the petitioners to address these points. It is with this view that I am inclined to condone the delay in this case, subject to the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/ - with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and paying a like cost to the complainant within four weeks of the date of this order. ''''

Again in clause (ii) of para 24 of the judgment while distinguishing that case with the case of UT Chandigarh Administration vs. Amarjeet Singh II (2009) CPJ 1 (SC), it was further held: ''''(ii) This is so in view of the explicit provisions of Clause 6 of the letter of allotment, already reproduced above, according to which the Development/Housing Authority like the petitioner/s unambiguously promised to offer possession of the auctioned plot of land ''''on completion of development works in the area '''' In a situation like this, the auction purchaser of an existing site/plot/house will certainly be a ''''consumer '''' of, an accord with the provisions of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, the promised developmental ''''service '''' of the Authority in question, from the date of the letter of allotment till such time the promised service/s is/are delivered to the satisfaction of the purchaser, in accordance with the service provider ''s i.e. the Authority ''s commitment in this behalf. The ruling of the Apex Court in the UT Chandigarh case does not, in my respectful view, cater for a situation where an auction purchaser buys an existing plot of land, not on ''''as is where is '''' basis but with an explicit commitment on the part of the original owner/auctioning entity to offer possession after completion of development works in the area. It is also true that in neither of the two cases quickly following the UT Chandigarh case (as cited by Mr. Pattjoshi, vide paragraph 22(ii) above) did the Apex Court find it fit to disentitle an auction purchaser to its simultaneous identity of a ''''consumer '''' under the Act. Therefore, the principal legal ground on which this revision petition is based has to be firmly rejected. ''''

LEARNED counsel for the petitioners fairly admitted that no commitment or promise was made in the allotment letter in their case as in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. Vs. Suneja & Sons, revision petition No. 2951 of 2009. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that learned counsel for the opposite party had given an undertaking that opposite party would remove the wires and which were actually removed. That claims already stand satisfied. Moreover, this was not a commitment made in the allotment letter. It was the compromise matter settled between the parties before the State Commission. We are of the considered view that the present case is squarely covered under the Apex Court authority in UT Chandigarh Administration vs. Amarjeet Singh II (2009) CPJ 1 (SC). The petitioners are not the consumers.

NOW we turn to the question of limitation. The State Commission vide its order did not adjudicate other matters. The question of removal of two electric poles inside the plot and transformer in front of the plot was not adjudicated. The question of interest was not decided. The petitioner should have lost no time in filing the present revision petition to get relief about the same. However, there is delay of 196 days, which remains unexplained. The reasons given by the petitioners are not satisfactory. They should have filed the revision petition within 90 days from the order of the State Commission dated 8.11.2012, except for wires which have already been removed. The other causes of action were not adjudicated. Even if, the version of the petitioner is admitted there is no specific explanation as to why there was delay of 65 days. The day to day delay was not explained. The case fully dovetails with the supreme court authorities reported in AnshulAggarwal v. New OkhlaIndustrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108and Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, BikramDass vs. Financial Commissioner and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1221.

EVEN the delay of 65 days is fatal. The revision petition are, therefore, dismissed as barred by time and with the observations that the consumer fora has no jurisdiction to try the cases of open auction. However, the petitioner can agitate this question before the appropriate forum as per law but the question of limitation is being kept upon. Both the revision petition are hereby dismissed.