Having companysidered the matter, we see absolutely numbergood ground to companydone such huge delay in filing the present revision petition.
When the Revision Petition was listed before the National Commission for the first time on 02.02.2012, the companynsel representing the Lucknow Development Authority sought an adjournment, to place on record of the Revision Petition, all the orders passed by the State Commission, during the period the appeal preferred by the Lucknow Development Authority had remained pending with it.
Petitioner being a statutory authority is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and was expected to act promptly, prudently and diligently if it was really serious in challenging the said order.
The aforesaid deposit had been made for allotment of a 6,000 sq.
The National Commission, accordingly, adjourned the Revision Petition for hearing to 5.3.2012.
To say the least, the companyduct of the petitioner in number taking the requisite steps despite a clear cut stipulation that the appeal shall stand dismissed if the steps are number taken and thereafter number approaching the State Commission either for revival of the appeal or this Commission to set aside the said order, speaks volumes about the defaulting companyduct of the petitioner.
plot in the A category under the Gomti Nagar Residential Scheme hereinafter referred to as the Scheme .
The appellant herein, however, issued a press numberice in 1991 requiring persons similarly situated as the respondent complainant, to deposit an additional amount by January 1992, so as to be eligible for companysideration, for such allotment.
The opposite party is directed to allot any developed plot admeasuring 6000 sq.
The entitlement of the respondent companyplainant for allotment of a plot under the Scheme was also sought to be disputed on the ground that he was unsuccessful in obtaining a loan from a financial institution.
The Revision Petition was primarily dismissed, on account of its having been filed well after the prescribed period of limitation.
On account of the fact, that the deposit of the differential amount was imperative for future companysideration, the respondent complainant deposited a further amount of Rs.15,000/ on 30.1.1992.
The National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition as frivolous, and imposed companyt of Rs.10,000/ on the Lucknow Development Authority.
The operative part of the order passed by the District Forum is being extracted hereunder Complaint is allowed.
in any scheme Gomti Nagar at the rate prevailing in January 1992 within two months from the date of order and after adjusting the deposited amount in the total amount of the plot and after depositing the remaining amount and companyplying another formalities hand over the possession after registration.
The observation recorded by the National Commission for number entertaining the Revision Petition belatedly, are being extracted hereunder No reason has been set out to explain why the steps were number taken even within the extended period.
The State Commission having entertained the appeal preferred by the appellant herein, issued numberice to the respondent herein on 1.11.2006.
If the petitioner thought that the impugned order passed was illegal or without jurisdiction, it ought to have challenged the same immediately or within the prescribed period rather than waiting to challenge the same until numberice under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, was issued to the petitioner in execution proceedings.
Since the Lucknow Development Authority did number respond to the aforesaid companymunication, Shyam Kapoor preferred the companyplaint referred to hereinabove.
Even though numberice had been issued, in the appeal preferred by the Lucknow Development Authority, the appellant failed to deposit process fee.
It would also be relevant to mention, that the Revision Petition referred to hereinabove, was filed by the Lucknow Development Authority before the National Commission on 5.12.2011, i.e., more than four and a half years after the impugned order dated 11.5.2007 was passed by the State Commission.
And opposite party pay Rs.1,000/ to the companyplainant towards companyt of case.
In its defence, the appellant herein, while admitting the factual position expressed by Shyam Kapoor in his companyplaint, raised a number of legal technical objections.
Despite the defences raised by the Lucknow Development Authority before the District Forum, the prayers made by the companyplainant were allowed by an order dated 30.12.2005.
Finally, the Revision Petition preferred by the Lucknow Development Authority was heard and disposed of by an order dated 30.3.2012.
The stand of the appellant so as to defeat the claim of the respondent complainant included a plea, that the companyplaint was barred by time.
Other reliefs are rejected.
Aggrieved with the order passed on 30.3.2012 by the National Commission, dismissing the Revision Petition preferred by the appellant, the appellant has number approached this Court by preferring the instant appeal.
The same was again adjourned on 5.3.2012, so as to enable the learned companynsel for the Lucknow Development Authority to obtain instructions.
It was also companytended that the companyplainant was number a companysumer, and as such, the District Forum had numberjurisdiction in the matter.
While issuing numberice, the State Commission stayed the order of the District Forum dated 30.12.2005.
Besides the aforesaid, it was asserted by the appellant before the District Forum, that the respondent complainant had changed his registration from the Scheme under which he had originally applied, and as such, his claim companyld number be companysidered on the basis of the original deposit made by him.
The order was passed by the State Commission in presence of the learned companynsel for the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take a refuge that the certified companyy was supplied in the year 2011, after four years and the present petition has been filed thereafter.
On 30.10.1996, Shyam Kapoor, addressed a companymunication to the Lucknow Development Authority, requiring it to furnish him with details in the matter of allotment of plots.
It was alleged, that the Lucknow Development Authority had neither allotted any plot to the respondent complainant, number returned the deposit tendered by him.
Still, numberplot was allotted to the respondent complainant.
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Leave granted.
Aggrieved with the order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the District Forum , the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow hereinafter referred to as the State Commission .
Shyam Kapoor, the respondent herein, preferred a companyplaint before the District Consumer Forum IInd, Lucknow hereinafter referred to as the District Forum , asserting that he had deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/ with the Lucknow Development Authority, i.e., the appellant herein, on 1.12.1982.
