1.  This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 08.03.2013 of the State Commission in appeal no. 2216 of 2012 arising out of the Order dated 09.10.2012 of the District Commission in complaint no. 468 of 2008.

2.  Mr. Arjun Garg, learned advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner housing board and requests for an adjournment in order to file his ‘vakalatnama’.

We note that earlier, on 29.07.2021, also, that is to say more than 08 months back, adjournment had been sought by him on the same ground that he wished to file ‘vakalatnama’.

The respondent complainant present in person along with her learned counsel submits that this is the 5^th or 6^th time she is coming personally from the State of Madhya Pradesh to Delhi for this case. Time and again adjournments have been sought on behalf of the housing board on one ground or the other. The cause relates to 2006. She has favourable Orders from both the fora below. The petition filed by the housing board is lingering on since 2013. She requests that the matter may be decided one way or the other.

3.  We have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 09.10.2012 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 08.03.2013 of the State Commission and the petition. We have also gone through the proceedings before this Commission from 08.07.2013 onwards when the petition was first listed before the bench.

4.  The cause arose in 2006. The complaint was filed in 2008. The District Commission passed its Order in 2012. The State Commission passed its Order in 2013. The revision petition before this Commission was filed in 2013. We are now in 2022. The Act 1986 is “for better protection of the interests of consumers”. Its Statement of Objects and Reasons says of “speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes”. The way and manner in which the petition has been procrastinated before this Commission from 2013 onwards is quite disconcerting.

We deem it just and conscionable to decide the matter at least now. As such we are disposing of the petition on the basis of the record.

5.  Briefly, the complainant submitted an application on 23.03.2006 for allotment of Junior H.I.G. flat No. 203 in Katara Hills under a scheme of ‘first come first served’ basis introduced by the housing board. As per the terms and conditions of the said scheme she paid 10% of the consideration amount i.e. Rs. 74,000/- on 23.03.2006 itself by way of bank draft attached with her application. The said amount was credited into the bank account of the housing board on 25.03.2006. But the housing board allotted the Junior H.I.G. flat in question to a third person, who had made an application for M.I.G. DX flat No. 245 on 21.03.2006 and not for Junior H.I.G. flat No. 203 and who had not even paid the entire 10% consideration amount i.e. Rs. 74,000/- for a Junior H.I.G. flat prior to 23.03.2006 (i.e. when the complainant made her application accompanied with a demand draft of the entire 10% of the consideration amount). The housing board informed the complainant on 01.05.2006 that she could not be allotted the Junior H.I.G. flat No. 203 and proposed that she might take any other flat out of the vacant flats available with it. However no other flat was allotted to her either.

6.  The complainant filed a complaint with the District Commission on 04.06.2008. The District Commission passed its Order on contest after hearing the housing board too. Making an appraisal of the evidence it determined that the third person to whom the Junior H.I.G. flat No. 203 was allotted had made an application for some other flat in some other category (M.I.G. DX). He had also not deposited the entire 10% of the consideration amount for a Junior H.I.G. flat before the complainant made her deposit. Clear and complete details of the flat being applied for and the amount being deposited by way of demand draft were lacking in his application. Amounts of Rs. 65,000/- and Rs. 9,000/- i.e. total Rs. 74,000/- were credited in the housing board’s bank account on 28.03.2006 (i.e. subsequent to the complainant’s credit on 25.03.2006). The scheme was strictly on ‘first come first served’ basis. 10% of the consideration amount had necessarily to be paid for the purpose of ‘first come first served’. The housing board continued to retain the 10% of the consideration amount i.e. Rs. 74,000/- deposited by the complainant but did not allot any other Junior H.I.G. flat too in the alternative. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the housing board to receive the (balance) consideration as per the rates in the year 2006 and allot one Junior H.I.G. flat at Katara Hills and execute its registration in favour of the complainant or in the alternate allot one Junior H.I.G. flat in its existing or next scheme equivalent to Katara Hills on priority basis. It also awarded Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony as well as Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation.

7.  The housing board appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission in its Order dated 08.03.2013 inter alia observed that “  - - - We find that the District Forum has correctly approached the matter and has come to the right conclusion that the Housing Board wanted to give a preference to a person who had deposited less amount - - -”. And it dismissed the appeal (“We find no substance in this appeal”).

8.  Concurrent findings have been returned by the District Commission and the State Commission. The Orders of the two fora are a matter of record. No useful purpose will be served by reproducing them here all over again. Suffice is to say that we find the Orders to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. We do not notice any jurisdictional error or material irregularity as may go to vitiate the findings. We also do not find any reason to make fresh de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. We find no good ground for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

9.  The appraisals made by the two fora below show that the scheme of ‘first come first served’ essentially entailed that 10% of the consideration amount of the flat being applied for shall be paid with the application and this was one principal (objective) criterion to determine the sequence and ascertain the order of making applications for ‘first come first served’. The complainant had deposited the entire 10% of the consideration amount with her application on 23.03.2006 which had been credited into the bank account of the housing board on 25.03.2006. The third person to whom the Junior H.I.G. flat in question was allotted had not given clear and complete details of the flat being applied for in his application. But it was borne out that he had applied for a particular M.I.G. DX flat on 21.03.2006. Further it was not borne out in his case that the entire 10% of the consideration for a Junior H.I.G. flat was ever paid with the application. Instead of that the amounts of Rs. 65,000/- and Rs. 9,000/- totalling Rs. 74,000/- i.e. 10% of the consideration amount for a Junior H.I.G. flat were credited in the account of the housing board on 28.03.2006 i.e. subsequent to 25.03.2006 when the amount of Rs. 74,000/- paid by the complainant had already been credited.

It is clearly evinced that the complainant had been discriminated against by an arbitrary act of the housing board in overlooking her rightful claim under ‘first come first served’ and by unjustly allotting the Junior H.I.G. flat in question to favour another person in violation of a fundamental condition of the scheme of ‘first come first served’. And also that the complainant had been further wronged by the housing board by not allotting any other Junior H.I.G. flat too in the alternative.

10.     We may add that the housing board is a government development authority for public good. This is a clear case of violation of the basics of ‘first come first served’ and is as such discriminatory and arbitrary. Additionally a bad air of malafide and financial malfeasance appears to have pervaded the whole matter. The award made by the District Commission, as upheld by the State Commission, is self-evidently to remedy the wrong done to the complainant. It shall however be open to the housing board to fix responsibility and to recover its pecuniary loss if and as any from its functionaries responsible for the wrong along with taking any other action against them as per the law. Furthermore it shall also be open to the housing board to recover its pecuniary loss if any from its functionaries responsible for non-prosecution of its case before this Commission. This Commission is conscious that a government development authority functions under the state government’s administrative, financial and technical rules prescribed, its functionaries are accountable, its accounts are subject to audit, it takes similar decisions in respect of similarly situate persons. In the instant case, but, it is well evinced that there is clear discrimination and arbitrariness and favoritism in favour of the one person to the detriment of the other person (i.e. the complainant), deficiency and unfairness & deceptiveness are writ large. However, with advice that the housing board would do well to fix responsibility and imbibe systemic accountability, we deem it appropriate to direct that this case shall not be treated as a precedent, lest it may obstruct the normal bonafide functioning of the board as per the rules without fear or favour. 

11.     The petition stands dismissed.

12.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.