Back
2012(3) CPR 476 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member
City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.,Through its Administrator,CIDCO —Petitioner
versus
Montessory Balak Mandir Shikshan Sanstha, Saraswati Bhuvan Colony,Aurangabad, through its Secretary —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2098 OF 2012
(Against the order dated 19.11.2010 in Appeal No. 1635 of 2003 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad)
Decided on 16.8.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S. B. Prakash Adgaonkar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Yashwardhan, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Industrial Development Authority cannot refuse to execute sale-deed after receiving full amount.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Real Estate—Allotment of plot—District Forum directed petitioner to execute registered lease deed in respect of plot in favour of complainant—There is delay of 446 days in filing revision petition—More than 9 years have elapsed but respondent is yet to reap fruits of price it paid for purchasing such plots—Allotment letter regarding plot is already issued by appellant to respondent—All conditions of allotment letter have already been complied with by respondent—Question of getting approval from concerned committee is internal matter of appellant and his higher office and same is not an issue to be dealt with by respondent—Reasons given by appellant for not executing lease deed and handing over possession of plots to respondents are not justified—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 9 to 17)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed by City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIDCO’). The facts of the case are these. The complainant, Montessory Balak Mandir Shikshan Sanstha is discharging charitable activities. The petitioner had called tender for the plots reserved for the education purpose in CIDCO area of Aurangabad through advertisement in the month of Feb., 1998. The respondent-complainant submitted tender for plot Nos. 2, 2a, 2b & 2c alongwith earnest money in the sum of Rs.71,000/- in respect of plot Nos. 2, 2a separately and Rs.85,000/- each in respect of plot No. 2b, 2c. However, the petitioner allotted only two plots in favour of the respondent which are 2b and 2c each admeasuring 1968 sq. mtr. to the respondent vide its letter dated 17/24-11-99. The said letter also required the respondent to pay the balance amount of Rs.92,120/- for each of the two plots, out of which, an amount of Rs.3560/- was to be paid upto 27.12.1999 and an amount of Rs.88,560/- was to be paid upto 27.1.2000. The respondent paid the entire balance amount of Rs.92,120/- in respect of above said both the plots i.e. 2b, 2c.
2. Thereafter, the respondent requested the petitioner to execute the lease deed and to hand over the possession of both the plots. The petitioner informed the respondent vide letter dated 16.6.2000 that allotment of said plots have not been sanctioned by ‘Social Facility Committee’ vide its resolution dated 13.10.1999. The petitioner was directed to send the proposal on the lines of ‘CIDCO’, New Mumbai. The said resolution was wrongly interpreted by the Marketing Division of its office and it wrongly issued allotment letter dated 24.11.1999 to the respondent.
3. The petitioner further intimated that whatever amount was deposited would be refunded or they should wait till proposal was cleared by the said Committee. The respondent sent letters and requested that sale deed of the plots in their favor should be executed. The respondent, thereafter, issued legal notice dated 27.3.2001 to the petitioner. The petitioner sent reply dated 3.4.2001 and intimated the respondent that original file regarding allotment of plot had been submitted to the Head Office for sanction.
4. The petitioner vide letter dated 18.4.2001 directed the respondent to comply with two points: (i) since the said plot would be allotted for secondary school, cost of the plots equal to the 50% be deposited and consent for the same be given, (ii) to provide the result of the school for the last three years.
5. Ultimately, the respondent approached the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 11.8.2010 directed the petitioner to execute registered lease deed in respect of plot Nos. 2b and 2c in favour of the complainant as per the agreement within a period of two months. The said order was announced on 11.8.2003.
6. An appeal was filed against the order of District Forum before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide order dated 19.11.2010.
7. The first question which falls for consideration is ‘whether the application for condonation of delay should be allowed or not. There is delay of 446 days in filing this revision petition. The petitioner has explained the delay and made the following averments. The fora below have failed to consider that the ‘Social Facility Committee’ which is authority to consider and approve the offer, had at no point of time, approved the same. On the contrary, the matter was referred back to the Chief Administrator, (New Towns), Aurangabad to resubmit the same with further scrutiny etc., however wrongly interpreting the same, allotment letter was issued by Aurangabad office. According to the petitioner, such a letter cannot give a right to the addressee to claim the right as attempted by the complainant. The petitioner is a Government owned company and various high level officers of the petit
