NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3234/2010

PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHAGWAN - Opp.Party(s)

MS. UPASANA NATH

15 Oct 2010

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 3234 OF 2010

(Against the Order dated 09/04/2010 in Appeal No. 522/2004 of the State Commission Punjab)

1. PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. Through its Chief Administrator, SCO 63-64, Sector 17-C Chandigarh 2. PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Near BRS Nagar, Ferozepur Road Ludhiana Punjab	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. BHAGWAN R/o. 2631, New Ambedkar Nagar, Samrala Road Ludhiana Punjab	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

MS. UPASANA NATH

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 15 Oct 2010

ORDER

ORAL ORDER PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. This revision has been filed with delay of 36 days. In the condonation application routine and normal explanations have been furnished for delay in filing the revision which are as under:- . That thereafter some time was consumed by the department in taking action for filing the revision petition and taking opinion from various officers. Thereafter some time was consumed in processing of file. After that the file was sent to undersigned Counsel for drafting the revision petition. 5. That the undersigned Counsel drafted the revision petition and sent the same to the department for vetting and signing the affidavit. 6. That Department after vetting sent the same back to Counsel. In this process a delay of ____ days has occurred. It is pertinent to note that even the number of days of delay with which the application for condonation has been filed is not mentioned in the application and the column is left blank. No corresponding details have been given as to how much time was consumed to procure which of the opinion from which of the officers, how much time was taken for processing the file, how much time was taken, in drafting the revision and sending the same to the department and when the file was received back by Counsel. Obviously, we do not find that any sufficient ground whatsoever has been given by the Petitioner for condoning the delay. The application is, therefore, dismissed and the revision is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. However, we have gone through the merits of the matter. The order of the State Commission is not only well reasoned order but it is just, fair and equitable. The State Commission has given good reasons for passing the order which are contained in paragraphs 18 to 23 and ultimately what the State Commission has directed is that the Respondent should consider the application initially filed by the appellant. If no house is available under this scheme, the appellant may be considered in a similarly situated EWS house from any other rehabilitation scheme floated by the Respondents. The Complainant was however asked to complete necessary formalities . It may also be mentioned here that PUDA took five years to refund Rs.1000/- to a jhuggi dweller poor man. The revision, in our view, is frivolous in nature. In view of this, we do not find any merit in this revision. We therefore dismiss the revision with exemplary cost of Rs.25000/-, out of which Rs.15000/- be deposited by the Petitioner with Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within a period of one month, failing which no revision of PUDA shall be registered by the Registry. The balance amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner to Complainant/Respondent, who has suffered in the process, by demand draft within one month and receipt thereof be filed in the Registry.

......................J

R.K. BATTA

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

VINAY KUMAR

MEMBER