Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 378 (UTT)

Director Rehabilitation v. Vishnupal Singh Parmar

2005-08-31

B.K.TAIMNI, S.N.KAPOOR

body2005
ORDER Heard the learned counsel. 1. This revision is directed against an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttaranchal, in execution Appeal No.13 of 2003 allowing the appeal and setting aside an order of the District Forum Tehri Garhwal directing the complainant {Decree holder} to pay Rs.30.750/against the final order passed of the State Commission in regular appeal. 2. The complainant filed a complaint against the Director, Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Directorate, District Tehri Garhwal, Uttaranchal. The District Forum passed an order on 20-6-2001 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite party/petitioner to allot a plot of 150 sq.mtr. to the complainant within a month. An appeal was filed against that order and that order was confirmed by the State Commission on 10-9-2002. no appeal or revision was filed against that order. 3. In execution the District Forum ordered that since the prices had been increased, therefore the complainant should pay Rs.30,750/- more to get the plot allotted. Against that order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission by the complainant. The State Commission has set aside the impugned order of the District Forum by quashing the same and District Forum was ordered to execute its order passed in regular appeal. 4. Mr. Rawat contends that the petitioner has filed this revision against the order passed by the State Commission dated 11-4-2005 as well as against the order passed by the State Commission earlier on 10-9-2002. 5. In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner, has enumerated following grounds: - i) That the Rehabilitation Directorate is not a permanent body. The task for rehabilitating the Tehri Dam oustees was initially entrusted to the State of Uttar Pradesh and after the creation of State of Uttaranchal the same task was entrusted to the State of Uttaranchal. Since the task of rehabilitation involved a very difficult task, as there are protests, litigations and politics on the issue of package, quantum of money, land, houses, etc. In order to achieve the peaceful rehabilitation measures, the State of Uttaranchal constituted a Directorate, headed by District Magistrate of district Pauri Garhwal as the Director of the directorate, and other variou~ expert members were drawn from various other Department e.g. Irrigation. Forests, etc. In order to achieve the peaceful rehabilitation measures, the State of Uttaranchal constituted a Directorate, headed by District Magistrate of district Pauri Garhwal as the Director of the directorate, and other variou~ expert members were drawn from various other Department e.g. Irrigation. Forests, etc. The directorate was also assisted by the Committee of elected representatives of the public like M.L.A, M.Ps and Ministers as it involves policy decision by various department consultation with various concerned departments of the Central Government. ii) That due to the aforesaid constitution of the Directorate, the case file could not be processed timely for some long time; there was no Director in the directorate as the District Magistrate and their officials are routinely, transferred from one district to other district delaying decision taking process. iii) All the decision in the Directorate are taken in consultation with the Central Government, as the funds for each action is provided by the Central Government, which further delayed the process of decision. taking and processing the case file from one Ministry to another Ministry, as rehabilitation involves decision from ail concerned Ministry. Therefore, further delay. iv) That after the impugned orders' were obtained from the Hon'ble State Commission, the same was processed through the Ministry of Urban Development, Forest and Panchayat Raj etc. of the State. Thereafter, after having sanction from the State Government, the case file was sent to the Head Office of T.H.D.C at Noida, thereafter to Ministry of Forest Environment, Energy and Urban Development of the Central Govt., which has caused further delay. 6. It is evident from the above that some of the reasons are totally flimsy. It is apparent that it is sought to be made out that there was no Director. Could it be believed that no person was even officiating as Director? In absence of Notification or Government order, it is not possible for us to believe that an officer of the rank of the District Magistrate would' not be' entitled to take decision to file revision or not. If a decision to contest execution could be taken, a decision to file a revision against order in regular appeal could also be taken. Nor, it is believable that a Committee, which had been constituted to assist, the Director would be so powerful that the Director could not take a decision in this regard. If a decision to contest execution could be taken, a decision to file a revision against order in regular appeal could also be taken. Nor, it is believable that a Committee, which had been constituted to assist, the Director would be so powerful that the Director could not take a decision in this regard. This is also not such a matter, which required any policy decision and as such it would be required to be referred to the State Government or Central Government. No details of such consultations have been given. Supposing it was so, file movement has not been disclosed date-wise to appreciate its difficulties in the administrative process. We are not inclined to accept that such a circuitous administrative approach obstructed by political interference could be taken to be sufficient cause to condone the delay. 7. If the Directorate instead of being assisted by the Committee of elected representatives of the public like MLAs, Mps and Ministers is dominated by such a conflicting approaches and perceptions and the matter was required to be processed by the Directorate, Ministry of Urban Development, Forest and Panchayat Raj etc., it is high time that rules of business of the Directorate are appropriately modified to give an elbow room to the Director to take prompt decision on his own. 8. Besides, provisions under Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act would not stand modified to the extent as is being sought and such long delay could not be condoned. The impugned order was passed as far back on 10-9-2002. The revision should have been filed within 90 days. 9. Even at the stage after execution application was filed and when it was being contested by the petitioner, it was not thought proper to file Revision immediately. An appeal was filed against the order passed by the District Forum in Execution matter. Even at that stage, the petitioner did not wake up to file the revision. In the abovementioned circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay. 10. Even on merits, the petitioner has no case for if any price was raised after the allotment, the enhanced price/rate would not be applicable to the allotment, which had already been made at old rate. A vested right of the complainant is created on allotment and acting in compliance of order of allotment to the detriment of the complainant would amount to estoppel. A vested right of the complainant is created on allotment and acting in compliance of order of allotment to the detriment of the complainant would amount to estoppel. The petitioner could not on their own, without consent, modify terms of allotment. As such, the price would not be enhanced. 11. Besides, the District Forum in execution could not go beyond the order passed by the State Commission in appeal on merits which had attained finality. The State Commission rightly allowed the appeal. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no force in this revision even on merits. 13. The application for condonation of delay as well as the Revision Petition both are dismissed accordingly.