The judgment establishes the principle that Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to go into the correctness of demands by a public housing authority, and the authority must act in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

ORDER

Vinay Kumar, Member - Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) has filed this revision petition against the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 458 of 2007. This appeal was disposed of in terms of the decision of the State Commission in FA No. 457 of 2007. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal of PUDA against the order of the District Forum, Ludhiana under which petitioner HUDA was directed "to charge non-construction fee in accordance with Rule 13 of the 1995 Rules and to refund the same if the amount has been received in excess."

2. The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that she was owner of a plot which she had decided to sell. For this she had sought No Objection certificate (NOC) from the petitioner. In the communication of 30.6.2004 from Estate Office, Ludhiana, PUDA, she was asked to deposit Rs. 2,66,350 on account of extension fee/non-construction charge. The Complainant allegedly contested it, claiming that under the relevant rules/memo of 29.1.1988 she was required to be charged only Rs. 6,600. However, in view of her financial constraints and need to sell the plot, she paid the demanded amount on 30.6.2004 and was granted a necessary NOC on 1.7.2004. Thereafter, she filed the consumer complaint on 24.8.2004 before the District Forum, Ludhiana seeking refund of the excess amount of Rs. 2,06,350 together with compensation and cost.

3. The claim was contested by PUDA on the ground inter alia that the amount of Rs. 2,66,350 charged to the Complainant, was "Legally in accordance with law on account of non-construction charges. Therefore she was not entitled to its refund".

4. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal, relying on the decision of the National Commission in Narinder Singh Nanda v. P.U.D.A., in RP No. 2125 of 2006, decided on 27.5.2009. The State Commission held that in terms of the law laid down by the National Commission, there was no illegality in the order of the District Forum.

5. The above order of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is challenged by revision petitioner PUDA in the present proceedings. We have carefully perused the grounds of revision. The main ground is that

"The impugned order has been passed by the Hon'ble State Commission relying on the order dated 27.5.2009 in Revision Petition No. 2125/2006, Narinder Singh Nanda v. PUDA and Revision Petition No. 2568/2006 PUDA v. Narinder Singh Nanda, of this Hon'ble Commission, which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being subject matter of S.L.P. (C) No. 28198-99 of 2009 (Now Civil Appeal No. 8314-8315 of 2010), Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and Anr. v. Narinder Singh Nanda, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to grant leave and confirm the interim stay vide order 20.9.2010."

It needs to be observed here that the revision petition was filed on 16.7.2012 and the matter was finally heard on 15.1.2013. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mrs. Rachna Joshi Issar was heard for the revision petitioner PUDA and Mr. G.D. Goyal, Senior Advocate was heard on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant. No further change in the status of the civil appeal, under consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court, has been reported by the Counsel for PUDA.

6. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner/PUDA that the impugned order has been passed in ignorance of the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in HUDA v. Sunita, 2005 (2) SCC 479, wherein it was held that Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to go into the correctness of demand for composition/extension fee by a public housing authority. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant sought to distinguish the decision in HUDA v. Sunita, on the ground that the demand has been raised under the HUDA Act and Regulations, while the question before the National Commission is whether the demand made was as per the relevant law and rules or