IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986)



Date of Decision: 09.03.2009



Appeal No. FA-09/77

(Arising out of Order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum, 150-151, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi in Case No. 129/08)



Sh. Raghubir Singh Rana … Appellant

S/o LateSh. Rati Ram Through

H.No. 41, Sirapur, Mr. Satish Rana,

Delhi-110042. Advocate



Versus



Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board … Respondent

Govt. of NCT of Delhi,

9, Institutional Area,

Pankha Road, Janakpuri,

New Delhi-110058.

Through its Chairman/Secretary



CORAM:



Justice J.D. Kapoor … President

Ms. Rumnita Mittal … Member



1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?





Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)



1. The grievance of the appellant who had applied for allotment of built-up shops meant for wholeseller in Ch. Chet Ram Wholesale Vegetable Market, Keshopur, New Delhi pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent is that he was not informed about the change in the policy for inviting the fresh applications for allotting shops to agriculturists as defined under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing(Regulations) Act, 1998 and therefore rejection of his application was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

2. Vide impugned order dated 17.12.08 passed by the District Forum, the complaint of the appellant seeking allotment of the shops was dismissed on the ground that he does not come within the definition of consumer as he has neither purchased any goods from respondent Marketing Board nor has hired any services of the respondent which is a statutory body.

3. Admittedly the Marketing Board published advertisement in ‘Nav Bharat Times’ for the allotment of built-up shops meant for wholeseller in Ch. Chet Ram Wholesale Vegetable Market, Keshopur, New Delhi to different categories of actual farmers of Delhi. In pursuance of this advertisement, appellant submitted application No. 23 and also deposited requisite fee of Rs. 5,000/-. The name of the appellant, therefore, was included in the list of draw after short listing of the applications. Subsequent thereto he received letter dated 22.11.07 on 07.01.08 whereby appellant was informed that his application has been rejected. In this letter no reason was assigned for rejection of his application and he was advised to collect the earnest money of Rs. 5,000/- from Agricultural Marketing Board and therefore he approached the Forum with the present complaint alleging unfair trade practice on the part of respondent, as well as, deficiency in service on their part assuming himself to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4. However, the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing(Regulation) Act, 1998 has been introduced for better regulation of marketing of agricultural produce as established in the preamble which is as under :-

“An Act to provide for the better regulation of marketing of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural produce in the National Capital Territory of Delhi and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

5. More relevant facts, in brief, are that initially Resolution No.17/2000 was passed whereby it was decided that 21 shops were reserved under farmer’s quota. Thereafter, vide Resolution No. 13/03 dated 03.01.2003, it was decided that applications be invited through open press advertisement for allotment of shops under the farmers quota and a Committee may be constituted by the Chairman, Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board. Then in pursuance of Resolution 13/03 a sub-committee was constituted, recommendations of which were approved by Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board vide Resolution No. 60/03 and it was decided that advertisement for calling the applications may be released. However, as a policy, it was decided that in all the marketing committees while allotting the shops in this category, the same should be allotted to agriculturists as defined in Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act, 1998 instead of restricting the same to farmers having Girdawari/Fard in their favour. As such, it was decided by respondent vide Resolution No. 29/05 that fresh applications may be invited wherein apart from farmers agriculturists may be included as defined under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, instead of restricting it to the farmers only who have Girdawari/Fard of fruits and vegetables. Public notice was issued about the change in the policy and for inviting fresh applications on the subject in pursuance of the policy of allotting the shops to agriculturists as defined under the Act. From the contents of the rejoinder filed by the appellant, it is evident that his main grievance is that though public notice about the change in the policy might have been given in the newspapers, he was not informed in person about the change in the policy.

6. In our view, merely by applying for allotment of a built-up shop did not vest any legal right in the appellant in view of the aforesaid change in the policy. It was not necessary for the respondent to intimate the appellant in person about the change in policy, a public notice by way of newspaper was sufficient. It is not the case whether the respondent Board has acted discriminately and against the general policy which is applicable to all the persons, similarly placed as the policy is. The act of the respondent in rejecting the application and refunding the amount received by it does not amount to unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.

7. Even if we assume that appellant was a consumer for the process of the application, still the fact remains that the application was rejected in view of the policy of the Board subsequent to Resolution passed, on which the respondent acted, otherwise they could have been held guilty for illegal act.

8. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.

9. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.

10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.

11. Announced on 9th day of March, 2009.









(Justice J.D. Kapoor)

President







(Rumnita Mittal)
Member