ORDER

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), filed by Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Housing Board”) and its Deputy Housing Commissioner, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint under the Act, is directed against the Order dated 28.10.2014, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 1381 of 2009. By the impugned Order, while affirming the Order dated 21.08.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 135/2008 (173/2006 Second), the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Housing Board.

2. Vide Order dated 21.08.2009, the District Forum had allowed the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, and directed the Housing Board to allot to the Complainant an HIG house under its Mansarovar Yojana, according to the size and cost prescribed under the Self-Financing Scheme, 2005 (First Part), within three months. The District Forum had also directed the Housing Board to pay to the Complainant sums of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation costs respectively.

3. The brief facts of the case are that by depositing the registration amount of Rs.10,000/- on 18.11.1987 the father of the Complainant had applied for allotment of an HIG house under the ‘Kalptaru Scheme – 1987’ floated by the Housing Board. On request, the said registration was transferred by the Housing Board in the name of the Complainant, vide their Office Order dated 06.03.1996. As against the said registration, instalments of Rs.62,110/- were deposited by the Complainant. When the Housing Board launched its Mansarovar Scheme at Jaipur for allotment of houses to the registered applicants under the Self-Financing Scheme, 2005 (First Part), the Complainant, who was already registered under the Kalptaru Scheme, 1987, applied in the new Scheme and also deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Housing Board on 14.03.2005. As per the schedule given in the said Scheme, the last date(s) for receiving the applications was 16.03.2005, for publication of temporary list of the eligible candidates was 31.03.2005, for receiving the objections was 04.04.2005, for publication of permanent list of the eligible candidates was 11.04.2005, and draw was to be held on 19.04.2005. In the temporary list published by the Housing Board, the name of the Complainant figured at Sl.No.2, but without any prior intimation and opportunity of personal hearing, his name was removed from the said list. Thereafter, in order to give undue benefit to the ineligible applicants, the second temporary list was published by the Housing Board on 02.01.2006; objections were invited till 04.01.2006; and on 07.01.2006 complete list was published. As regards removal of his name from the list, the Complainant had already sent a letter to the Housing Board on 05.12.2005, which letter was not responded to by the Housing Board and after publication of the second temporary list, proper time was also not given to him to take any further action in the matter.

4. In the said background, alleging gross negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the Petitioners in: (i) removing the name of the Complainant from the list of the eligible candidates without any prior intimation and personal hearing; (ii) not responding to the letters dated 05.12.2005 and 19.01.2006, written by the Complainant to the Housing Board; (iii) after publication of the second temporary list, not providing the Complainant proper time to furnish his objections; (iv) considering the applicants of the year 1979, who had registered themselves for allotment of MIG houses, eligible under the new Scheme for allotment of HIG houses; (v) not considering the case of the Complainant, who had registered himself for allotme