IMPORTANT POINT
Allotment – Once an allotment letter is made its conditions prevail over the conditions mentioned in the earlier LoI.

ORDER

This appeal under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 25.09.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 313 of 2018.

2. Ms. Anavntia Shanker, learned proxy counsel appears for the appellant (the ‘development authority.’).

Mr. Dushyant Tiwari, learned counsel appears for the respondent (the ‘complainant’).

Heard. Perused the record.

3. Learned proxy counsel for the development authority requests for an adjournment.

Learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposes. He submits that on 09.03.2022 the application seeking condonation of delay of 34 days in filing the present appeal was allowed by a co-ordinate bench as it was not opposed by the complainant (“This application seeking condonation of delay is allowed as not opposed by the Respondent”.). The complainant is craving for an early decision on merits. However the development authority is unduly delaying the case. Earlier, on 08.08.2022, 14.09.2022, 09.11.2022, 23.01.2023, 13.03.2023 and 10.04.2023 adjournment was granted at the behest of the development authority. The complainant has never asked for adjournment and has always been represented on each date. The complainant has a favourable Order from the State Commission but the development authority is unjustifiably procrastinating its appeal and is in effect unduly attempting to negate the State Commission’s award. Submission is that any more delay in deciding the appeal will cause further prejudice to the complainant. Learned counsel also submits that further to the Order dated 09.03.2022 both sides have already filed their respective briefs of written arguments.

4. The case is listed for ‘final hearing’. The ideal normative period to dispose of an appeal is 90 days of its admission (section 52 of the Act 2019). The appeal was filed in 2019. We are now in 2023. Sufficient reason or good ground to grant any further adjournment is just not forthcoming. As such the request for adjournment is politely declined.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that earlier vide Order dated 15.02.2023 the complainant had withdrawn his cross appeal no. 13 of 2019 since the root of the matter is whether the development authority has functioned in accordance with the laid down rules and as per the law and whether similar decisions have been taken in respect of similarly situate persons and the functioning of the development authority in the matter will be tested when the present appeal no. 09 of 2019 filed by the development authority is heard and decided.

6. The said Order passed in appeal no. 13 of 2019 is reproduced below for reference.

Dated: 15th February 2023

Order

1. The present appeal no. 13 of 2019 under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 25.09.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 313 of 2018.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (the ‘complainant’) and for the respondent (the ‘development authority’) and have perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the concerned complaint no. 313 of 2018 was partly allowed by the State Commission vide its Order of 25.09.2018. The nub of the case is whether or not the development authority has functioned in accordance with the laid down rules and as per the law, whether or not similar decisions have been taken in respect of similarly situate persons. The development authority has also challenged the same Order of the State Commission vide appeal no. 09 of 2019 in which the complainant is the respondent. Learned counsel submits that he will raise all his issues and contentions and make all his submissions and arguments in the said appeal no. 09 of 2019 in its final hearing and wishes to withdraw the instant appeal no. 13 of 2019.

4. Learned counsel for the development authority agrees that the root of the matter is wh