Kuldeep Singh and Smt.
On 7.9.2010, the case was adjourned to 9.9.2010 at the request of learned companynsel for the Board.
This is evident from the following paragraphs of one such letter sent to the Progressive Co operative House Building Society Limited respondent No.2 in the lead appeal 1.
The Societies and their members were made jointly and severely responsible for payment of premium including installments and ground rent.
The members of the Societies, who felt aggrieved by the action of the Board to forfeit 10 earnest money and the direction given by the Finance Secretary number to refund 18 interest, filed companyplaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for short, the Act .
Now some of the societies after paying the above amount of earnest money and interest have sought refund in respect of their certain members.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of that letter read as under You are requested to accept the balance amount of 15 to companyplete the 25 earnest money along with the interest 18 p.a.
Subh Lata to her.
They pleaded that action and decision companyplained against were number only companytrary to the provisions of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973 for short, the 1973 Rules , the 1991 Scheme but were also discriminatory inasmuch as the applications made by Kuldip Singh son of Gurdin Singh and Smt.
Although, the members of the Societies paid the balance earnest money and 18 interest, the Board did number take effective steps for allotment of land to the Societies.
After companysidering the recommendations of the companymittee and guidelines given by the Deputy Commissioner cum Estate Officer, the Finance Secretary issued memo dated 9.3.2000, the relevant portions of which are reproduced below Full refund of earnest money will hence forth be made to the societies and its members without forfeiting 10 of the 25 earnest money deposited.
In the written statement filed on behalf of the Board, an objection was raised to the very maintainability of the companyplaints on the ground that there was numberprivity of companytract between the companyplainants and the Board.
Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer of the Board issued circular letters dated 3.11.1992 to the Societies indicating the amount deposited by them towards 10 of the earnest money premium, the total amount payable by them and also called upon them to furnish the list of eligible members and details of the deposits made on behalf of each member category wise.
The District Forum also accepted the plea of discrimination and observed The companyplainant has also alleged discrimination against him vis vis two other applicants members of OP 2 namely Sh.
up to date of the High Court order i.e. 18.12.96, from the petitioners of the Co operative House Building Societies who jointly filed CWP No.1454 of 1992 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, calculation and imposition of interest would, therefore, be stopped till the possession of land is offered to the Societies.
They specifically averred that till the making of applications for refund, the Board had number allotted land to the Societies.
for the period from 1.6.1992 to 18.12.1996 from the petitioner societies.
Clause 8 provided for refund of earnest money to a Society, if it were to cancel the demand before allotment of land.
Yours faithfully, Secretary, Chandigarh Housing Board.
The allegation of discrimination was companytroverted by asserting that in the cases of Shri Kuldip Singh and Smt.
The Finance Secretary and the Board issued directions from time to time for payment of the earnest money and interest by the members of the Societies.
If the scheme had numberhing to do with the members of the Societies, then it would number have companytained provisions to regulate their eligibility and entitlement to get dwelling units to be companystructed on the land allotted by the Board and made them jointly and severally responsible for payment of the premium etc.
Kuldeep Singh had been forfeited and number the interest companyponent of their deposits.
The interest paid by the Societies on the earnest money deposited with the Board in pursuance of High Courts judgment dated 18.12.96 is number to be refunded if the Society seek refund of earnest money as a whole or in respect of any member, as it is number part of the earnest money.
The Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, through whom the Union of India was impleaded as a party to the companyplaints did number file written statement and it was left to the Board to companytest the companyplaints.
The Board too would number have entertained the request made by the members of the Societies for refund of the earnest money and remitted the amount to the Societies after deducting 10.
Thereafter, the Board vide its letter dated 15.12.1997 directed the Societies to deposit the balance 15 earnest money along with 18 interest.
HB s GAO AOI 98/22741 Dated11/12/98 To The Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh.
By clause 11, the provisions of the 1973 Rules were made applicable to the land allotted under the 1991 Scheme.
If we companypare these letters with each other and with the pleadings of the companyplainant and the pleadings of the OP.
Clause 6 of the Scheme enumerated the companyditions of eligibility and entitlement of the members for allotment of dwelling units of different categories.
The National Commission referred to letter dated 11.12.1998 and Memo dated 9.3.2000 issued by the Finance Secretary, Rule 8 of the 1973 Rules and observed From the letter dated 11.12.1998 and Memo dated 9.3.2000 extracted above, it may be seen that the issue of forfeiture of 10 of 25 of earnest money was under companysideration of the Chandigarh Administration since 1998 and the final decision taken is incorporated in the said Memo.
emphasis supplied Fifty three Societies challenged the 1991 Scheme in Writ Petition No.1454 of 1992 filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court with the following prayer i. Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of direction in the nature of Certiorari, may be issued thereby quashing the impugned numberification No.
Further a writ of Mandamus be issued to the respondent with a direction to give individual and developed plots to the members of the petitioner societies in view of the Scheme of 1983 which is still operative under which plots were shall be given.
On merits, it was pleaded that there was numberdeficiency in service or negligence on the Boards part and the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked by the companyplainants.
By clause 4, a duty was cast upon the Societies and their members to companyply with the provisions of the Capital of Punjab Development and Regulation Act, 1952 and the rules and regulations framed thereunder.
and the Finance Secretary would number have issued directions vide memos dated 9.6.1993 and 9.3.2000 in the matter of refund of earnest money and interest.
Therefore, some of them including Lieutenant Colonel Avtar Singh respondent No.1 in the lead appeal applied through their respective Societies for refund of the amount paid by them by clearly indicating that they were numberlonger interested in the flats.
In view of the interim order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.1454/1992, the Board accepted 10 earnest money and then called upon the Societies to give the particulars of their members and the amount deposited by them.
Clause 10 provided for companystruction of dwelling units by the Societies within three years from the date of allotment.
The petitioner Housing Board cannot take benefit of the delay on their part in finalizing the said issue to the disadvantage of respondent No.1/complainants.
By taking cue from the observations made by the High Court, the Finance Secretary sent memo dated 6.11.1997 to the Chairperson of the Board with the request to accept the balance 15 earnest money from the Societies along with interest at the rate of 18.
Another plea taken by the Board was that 18 interest was number refunded because it did number form part of the earnest money.
Thereupon, Secretary of the Board sent letter dated 11.12.1998 to the Finance Secretary seeking his guidance in the matter.
Thus, even though numberformal companytract had been entered into between the Chandigarh Administration and the Board on the one hand and the members of the Societies on the other hand, the former exercised sufficient degree of companytrol over the latter.
The District Forum numbered that till the making of applications by the companyplainants for refund of the earnest money and 18 interest by specifically mentioning that they were numberlonger interested in the flats, the Board had number allotted land to the Societies and held that forfeiture of 10 earnest money in terms of the decision companytained in memo dated 9.6.1993 and number refund of 18 interest were companytrary to the 1991 Scheme and the 1973 Rules and the same amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
By an interim order dated 11.5.1992, the Division Bench of the High Court permitted the Societies to deposit 10 of the tentative price and also recorded the undertaking given by them that if the writ petition is dismissed, they shall deposit the balance amount with interest 18 per annum, if they were to accept allotment of flats under the new scheme.
The Societies companyplied with the Boards directive and deposited the amount after companylecting the same from their members.
In terms of clause 9, every member of the Society was required to pay the amount to the Society by means of crossed demand draft and the latter was to deposit the same in its account maintained in the Chandigarh State Co operative Bank Limited.
Subh Lata, 10 of the 25 earnest money was forfeited in accordance with the instructions dated 29.7.1993 issued by the Finance Secretary but the amount was refunded to them in the month of March 1998.
Subject Refund of Earnest Money.
She also disclosed that allotment letters were issued to the Societies sometime in 2002.
Subh Lata w o Shri Tarlochan Singh for refund of the amount was accepted without any deduction but in their cases 10 of the earnest money and 18 interest were arbitrarily forfeited.
The Societies forwarded their applications to the Board.
That letter reads as under CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD CHANDIGARH No.
Sir, It is stated that the Board has been making refunds to the members of societies by deducting 10 of the revised density in terms of the Chandigarh Administration letter No.30/11/FTI 31 93/5149 dated companyy enclosed .
It was further pleaded that the decision of the Chandigarh Administration number to refund 18 amount paid by the members of the Societies was in companysonance with the 1991 Scheme and without challenging the same, the companyplainants were number entitled to any relief.
You are requested to decide the matter and decision taken may kindly be companyveyed at the earliest to decide such pending cases.
The refund to them had been made vide the OP 1 letters dated 30.3.1998 Annexure H and letter dated 17.3.1998 Annexure I .
In the meanwhile, the Finance Secretary companystituted a companymittee companysisting of Chief Executive Officer of the Board, Officer on Special Duty CP , Chandigarh Administration and Joint Registrar, Co operative Societies, Chandigarh to look into various pending issues of the Societies.
This naturally gave rise to an apprehension in their mind that they may have to wait indefinitely for getting the flats.
It is stated that 10 of 25 of the earnest money of these members was also forfeited as per the instructions dated 29.7.1993 and the refund was made to them in March 1998.
As per instruction issued vide your letter No.5158 UTIF 4 97/20685 dated 6.11.1997, the Board demanded balance 15 to companyplete 25 earnest money alongwith interest 18 p.a.
UTFI 3 91/5214 dated 28th May, 1991 Annexure P.4 issued by the Finance Secretary respondent No.2 .
However without waiting for the decision of the Finance Secretary, the Chief Accounts Officer of the Board suo motu remitted the amount of earnest money to the Societies after deducting 10 in accordance with the instructions issued by the Finance Secretary vide memo dated 9.6.1993 and directed that the same be paid to the members.
The National Commission agreed with the findings and companyclusion recorded by the State Commission and dismissed the revisions filed by the Board.
On this point the reply of the OP 1 is round about.
The interest companyponent of their deposits was refunded without its forfeiture.
On the next date, learned companynsel produced xerox companyy of letter dated 3.11.1992 sent by the Board to the President, Progressive Co operative House Building Society and a three page numbere.
Therefore, to this extent, the companyplainant was discriminated against by OP1 vis vis Kuldeep Singh and Subh Lata.
The instructions of Chandigarh Administration dated 9.6.1993 provide for refund of earnest money after forfeiting 10 of revised density but numberguidelines are available with the Board whether it should also refund the interest paid by the members for the period 1.6.1992 to 18.12.1996 or number.
Balance of 25 of the earnest money may be accepted at the original rate.
