N. Siddappa VS Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

J. RAJENDRA
N. Siddappa – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, Advocate (VC)
For the Respondents:Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate (VC)

ORDER

This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (‘State Commission’) order dated 20.09.2019 in FA No.2218/ 2012. In this the Appeal by the Petitioner/Complainant was dismissed, affirming the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysore (“District Forum”) Order dated 21.11.2012 in CC No. 567 of 2011.

2. As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 46 days in filing the present Revision Petition. As the delay occurred during the suspending period of limitation due to Covid-19, the present Revision Petition is treated to have been filed within limitation.

3. For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he applied six times since 1991 for a site under the “State Government Employees” quota. His name should have been at No. 25 in the seniority list but was unfairly moved to the general category and junior applicants were allotted sites out of turn in the Vasanthanagar layout, violating seniority. The shift to the gen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document