2006 (1) CPR 331
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION LUCKNOW
Palok Basu, President; Roop Singh & Vinod Shankar Chaubey, Member
Ram Kumar Rastogi—Appellant
versus
Tushar Rastogi & Anr.—Respondent
Appeal No. 1847 of 2004 with Appeal No. 2415 of 2004
Decided on 21-9-2005
noting and remark or approval on
office file in favour of respondent could not be taken to be an order till no allotment order was issued — Impugned order was liable to be set aside.(Paras 7 to 11)
Result : Appeals allowed.
Vinod Shanker Chaubey, Member — These are two appeals against the judgment and order dated 31-8-2004 delivered by District Consumer Forum-II, Lucknow in complaint case no. 505/2002.
2. Appeal no. 1847/04 has been filed by Ram Kumar Rastogi arraying Tushar Rastogi and Lucknow Development Authority as respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively. He has raised in the memo of appeal that plot no. TCV 64 in Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar was allotted to him due to his highest bid in the tender. Further it has been alleged that after completing all the formalities the registration of the deed was performed on 20-6-2003 and he got possession over the land. He got the building plan sanctioned and started construction. He has also filed the registered deed transferring the rights to him. It has further been alleged that Tushar Rastogi respondent no. 1 took part in the tender proceedings invited in the year 2001 but his bid was rejected by L.D.A. and against that rejection order Tushar Rastogi preferred complaint no. 505/02 before District Consumer Forum-II Lucknow. By the majority judgment dated 31-8-2004 the District Forum ordered for allotting the plot to respondent no. 1 Tushar Rastogi and also to hand over possession after completing the formalities. In the grounds of appeal it has been mentioned that since sale deed has been executed and registered in favour of appellant the District Forum was not entitled to pass such type of order. It has also been alleged that regarding tender proceedings the District Forum has got no authority to adjudicate. The respondent no. 1 Tushar Rastogi is not a consumer under law.
3. L.D.A. has also preferred an appeal no. 2415/04 with the averments that the District Consumer Forum has no authority to pass the judgment and order dated 31-8-2004. It is to be noted that judgment dated 31-8-2004 has been passed by two Members and that is the majority judgment which accepted the complaint and order dated 15-9-2004 has been passed only by the President and that is minority judgment. The appeal by L.D.A. has been preferred against both the others. The minority judgment says that LDA will pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost to the complainant as well as Rs. 57,000/- alongwith 9% interest on it which has been deposited by the complainant for participating the tender proceedings. The President in his minority judgment also observed that after registration of the sale deed in favour of Ram Kumar Rastogi the District Forum has got no authority to cancel the transfer deed nor has got authority to order for giving possession to the complainant in whose favour no transfer deed has been executed and registered. L.D.A. in its appeal has challenged both the orders on the ground that illegal orders have been passed without application of mind. The order has been passed in very hurried and arbitrary manner. It has also been mentioned that
respondent complainant is harassing LDA by filing writ petition, regular suit and revisions in various courts. One of the regular suit is pending before Civil Judge Lucknow of the same nature. The main plea of the L.D.A. is that no allotment of any land has been made to the complainant and his offer was not accepted and the LDA ordered for second auction proceeding. The complainant was informed to participate in the second auction proceedings but he did not participate for the reasons best known to him. The LDA requested to quash the order and judgment dated 31-8-2004 and 15-9-2004 mentioned above.
4. We have heard the arguments of Sri Avdesh Kumar Singh learned counsel for Ram Kumar Rastogi, Sri Asish Agnihotri learned counsel for L.D.A. and Sri S.D. Dwivedi learned counsel for respondent Tushar Rastogi. All the parties have also filed their written arguments. The written argument on behalf of respondent Tushal Rastogi bears the signature of learned counsel Shri Prayas Srivastava and Sri S.D. Dwivedi.
5. The main argument advanced by Sri Advesh Kumar counsel for appellant Ram Kumar Rastogi is that advert
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.