The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the appellant to sanction the site plan within a reasonable time and the entitlement of the non-construction fee only for a specific period.

ORDER

K.C. Gupta, President - This appeal has been directed by the OP against order dated 25.10.2001 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) vide which the complaint of the respondent/complainant was accepted and the appellant was directed to charge non-construction fee from the respondent for the period 1.7.97 to 26.10.98 i.e. the date when the respondent had submitted the building plan for sanction and after that the appellant had no right to charge any non-construction fee from the respondent till the delivery of sanctioned building plan to the respondents. The demand of Rs. 76,000 raised by the appellant on account of non construction fee vide letter dated 17.5.2000 (Ex. R-14) was quashed.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that Plot No. 625 measuring 500 sq. yards was allotted to Sh. Jagan Nath Gupta in Urban Estate, Phase I, Bathinda. He sold it to one Sh. Kesar Chand Jain son of Sh. Milkhi Ram at Chandigarh who in turn sold it to the respondent vide sale deed No. 2754 dated 11.8.1987. Since then, the respondents were in possession of the plot as owners. They applied with the appellant for the transfer of the plot in their name along with the relevant documents and the appellant vide letter dated 19.11.1997 allowed the transfer of ownership in their name on the basis of terms and conditions of the allotment letter.

3. It was next averred that the respondents applied for sanctioning of the building plan prepared by Smt. Archna Singla C/o Singla Architect in the year 1997 along with documents and requisite fee. However, the appellant raised certain objections vide letter dated 22.12.1997 and the said Architect after removing the objections again submitted the building plan vide diary No. 1017 dated 31.3.1998. However, the site plan was not sanctioned in spite of repeated letters.

4. It was further averred that the appellant vide letter dated 3.1.2000 and 24.1.2000 demand a sum of Rs. 49,500 on account of non-construction charges for the period 1997 to 31.12.1999. The same was alleged to be illegal and later on, the demand was raised to Rs. 76,000. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.

5. The appellant contested the complaint and stated that the building plan was submitted through Architect Smt. Archna Singla, which was returned to her with objections vide letter dated 22.12.1997. The respondents further submitted the building plan after removal of objections on 31.3.1998, which was sent to the Senior Architect (Building Plan Committee), Patiala for its sanction and the same was returned to Smt. Archna Singla to fulfil certain formalities to remove the objections. After removal of the objections, the respondents again submitted the building plan on 26.10.1998 and since the non-construction fee for the period from 1.7.1997 to 2000 was still outstanding, so, as per rules, the building plan was not sanctioned. It further stated that the demand of Rs. 76,000 made on account of non-construction fee for the period 1.7.1997 to 31.12.1999 is legal and as such, the complaint should be dismissed.

6. The parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits.

7. After hearing Counsel for the parties, the District Consumer Forum vide order dated 25.10.2001 accepted the complaint with costs as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the OP has filed the present appeal.

9. None appeared on behalf of the respondents although consistent efforts were made to get the respondents as well as their Counsel served.

10. We have heard Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant and carefully gone through the file.

11. It is an admitted fact that the respondents had applied for sanctioning of the building plan with the appellant on 2.5.97 through Architect Smt. Archna Singla but the same was returned to the respondent after raising certain objections vide letter dated 22.12.1997 (Ex. R-6). It is not clear that as to why the app