State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Greater Mohali Area Development ... vs M/S Chandigarh Royale City Promoters ... on 30 May, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.23 of 2022
Date of institution : 08.03.2022
Reserved On : 16.05.2022
Date of decision : 30.05.2022
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, having its Office at PUDA
Bhawan, Sector-62, Mohali, Punjab, through District Town
Planner/Authorized Signatory.
....Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1. M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd., though its
M.D./Director, SCO 489-490, 2nd Floor, Chandigarh.
.....Respondent/Proforma Opposite Party No.2
2. Kusha Gupta, House No.4/202, Royale Estate, Ambala Road,
Zirakpur, S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab-140603.
....Respondent/Complainant
Revision Petition under Section 47 (1) (b) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against
the order dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure P-1)
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission S.A.S Nagar in CC
No.463/2021.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 2
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes/No
Present:-
For the petitioner : Sh. Shekhar Verma, Advocate
For respondent No.1: Sh. Avilash Bhattacharjee, Advocate
For respondent No.2: Sh. Jatin Bansal, Advocate.
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT
Petitioner/opposite party No.1 i.e. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as "GMADA") has filed the present Revision Petition under Section 47 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to challenge the impugned order dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the reply of petitioner/opposite party No.1 has not been accepted.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present Revision Petition are that respondent No.2/complainant namely Kusha Gupta filed Consumer Complaint No.463 of 2021 before the District Commission against the petitioner/opposite party No.1-GMADA and respondent No.1/opposite party No.2, seeking following reliefs: Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 3
"a) Direct the OP No.1 to immediately carry out the external development works i.e. roads and road system, water supply, sewerage and drainage systems, electric supply etc. at the project.
b) Direct OP No.1 to give the details of the Bank account as to wherein the External Development Charges collected from the allottee and from the project have been utilized.
c) Direct the OP No.1 to provide with all the details of the minutes of the meetings conducted by it for the utilization of the EDC collected from the allottee and the entire project.
d) Grant compensation to the tune of ₹10 lac for inconvenience, mental harassment and damages suffered trade practices on the part of the part of the opposite parties.
e) Grant compensation to the tune of ₹1 lac towards the cost of litigation expenses incurred by the complainant.
f) Any other relief to which the complainant may be entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the case, be granted in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
4. It is mentioned in the Revision Petition that respondent No.1/opposite party No.2-M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. was granted a licence for setting up a residential colony on an area measuring 77.87 acres falling in Village Karala, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar. Said licence was valid up to 30.12.2015. Subsequently, on the request of opposite party No.2, the validity period of the licence was renewed from 31.12.2015 to 30.12.2021 by the Competent Authority-cum-Chief Administrator, GMADA by issuing Licence Renewal Certificate No.1314 dated 03.07.2020. It is further Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 4 mentioned in the Revision Petition there was a default of ₹25.71 Crore as on 20.02.2022 on the part of opposite party No.2 on account of External Development Charges (EDC) and the licence was expired. Opposite party No.2-Colonizer approached the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of filing CWP No.5721 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.03.2019 by issuing directions to the State of Punjab and GMADA to decide the representation by passing a speaking order within a period of two months. In compliance of directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court, a personal hearing was granted to opposite party No.2 on 16.07.2019 and thereafter, the claim of opposite party No.2 was rejected by passing Speaking Order dated 19.11.2019.
5. Thereafter, opposite party No.2 again approached the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No.35787 of 2019 for quashing of Speaking Order dated 19.11.2019, by raising a number of arguments. Said CWP came up for hearing before the Hon'ble High Court on 10.12.2019 and following order was passed:
" Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is ready to deposit the EDC but the development work has not been started and whatever proportion of the total amount is to be paid, it will be paid immediately on starting of the development activities.
Notice of motion.Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 5
On asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondents-State.
Adjourned to 18.12.2019.
Learned State Counsel is directed to get Instructions or to file a short reply by considering the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner is directed to supply two copies of the petition to learned counsel for the respondents-State during course of the day."
6. Notice of motion was issued but no interim relief was granted by the Hon'ble High Court in favour of opposite party No.2. A number of Consumer Complaints were filed by a number of persons before the District Commission, wherein respondent No.1/opposite party No.2 was arrayed as opposite party.
7. Petitioner/opposite party No.1-GMADA filed detailed reply to the Consumer Complaint filed by respondent No.2/complainant Kusha Gupta by taking certain preliminary objections that the complainant was not a 'Consumer' as there was no relationship of 'Consumer' and 'service provider' between the parties. The complaint was not maintainable due to agreement entered between the parties and also that the complaint was not maintainable before the District Commission, as matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court.
Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 6
8. During the pendency of complaint, respondent No.1/opposite party No.2 filed an application for directing petitioner/OP No.1 not to make any further demands in lieu of EDC charges. There was no mention of CWP No.35787 of 2019 pending before the Hon'ble High Court. The reply to the application on behalf of petitioner/opposite party No.1 was not accepted by the District Commission, despite making request. Said application was disposed of/allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order was passed on 25.02.2022, which is reproduced as under:
"At this stage, an application moved by Op No.2 is perused wherein it is mentioned that direction be issued to OP No.1 not to raise any further demand in lieu of External Development Charges (EDC). It is mentioned that OP No.2 had entered into an agreement with OP No.1 on 30.01.2013 and as such OP No.1 had collected the EDC from the answering OP, who in turn collected the same from the complainant and other property owners. It is averred that OP No.1 has already collected an amount of Rs.44,64,11,400/- from OP No.2 for EDC of the project, which was ultimately collected from the various consumers including the complainant. It is alleged that the amount has illegally been retained by OP No.2 and it has deprived interest to the allottees including the complainant. It is specifically alleged that OP No.2 had completed the internal works of the project i.e. providing internal roads, parks , street lighting, electricity connection etc. However OP No.1 has miserably failed to perform its duty towards the other allotees including the complainant by not constructing the roads as per the master plan, providing water supply, sewerage and drainage systems and electricity supply despite receiving the EDC charges from OP No.2. It is alleged in the application that no dues are pending towards the EDC towards OP No.2.
We have perused the application minutely. We feel, that ultimately due to the attitude of OP No.1, the complainant, who is likely to suffer along with other residents because she is being deprived of the "external development works" in the colony where she lives for which she had already paid to OP No.1 through OP No.2 Accordingly, it is ordered that OP No.1 will submit all the details of development which they have done pertaining to this project by accepting Rs. 44,64,11,400/- from OP No.2, who had collected the amount from various consumers including the complainant. It is further ordered that OP No.1 will not collect any further money till further orders from OP No.2 or from the complainant or other resident through OP No.1 towards EDC. Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 7
OP No.1 will also disclose that how much money which was collected by them from OP No.2 was spent in the name of EDC, in and outside the project where the complainant and the other residents live e.g. how much money is spent on sewerage , electricity and other external development works. OP No.1 is further restrained from collecting any EDC charges either from OP No.2 or from any resident till further orders. We feel, that if such type of direction is not given to OP No.1 , the complainant along with other residents of this Colony will suffer irreparable loss since they are already residing in the colony. Balance of connivance is also in favour of applicant as well as in the favour of the complainant and as such interim direction is required to be given to provide substantial justice to the parties. OP No.1 is at liberty to show cause against the above mentioned order that why the same be not made absolute till the final disposal of the complaint. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of charge. To come up on 30.03.2022 for evidence of the parties.
Member President/25.02.2022 At this stage, Sh.Naginder Vashisht, advocate has appeared on behalf of OP No.1 at about 12.37 P.M and brought the reply of the application. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has stated that he had to take the signatures of his client on the reply and as such he could not file the reply earlier and after obtaining the signatures today itself, he is filing the reply. We have already dictated the interim order in the open Commission in the presence of number of advocates on the dice itself We feel that no purpose will be served to accept the reply. However the same be tagged with the file. However, counsel for OP No.1 is at liberty to do the needful in accordance with rules.
Member President"
9. Said order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the petitioner by way of filing the present Revision Petition by raising various arguments.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party No.1- GMADA submits that the impugned order dated 25.02.2022 is per se illegal and has been passed without any jurisdiction. Said order has been passed without making a case of balance of convenience and also without recording any prima facie case in favour of opposite party No.2. As per the terms and conditions of the licence and also the Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 8 statutory agreement entered in terms of 'Form APR-IV' and other applicable statutory provisions, opposite party No.2 is liable to pay External Development Charges. The terms and conditions of licence and statutory agreement executed by opposite party No.2-Colonizer with the petitioner cannot be re-written by the District Commission, in view of ratio of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharathi Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC-704. Learned counsel further submits that the District Commission has gone beyond the terms of the contract while passing the impugned orders. The petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and prejudice would also be caused, as the recovery of EDC has been stayed, whereas it is public money. The impugned order is contrary to the terms and conditions of licence issued to the colonizer party. Learned counsel further submits that two Civil Writ Petitions bearing No.5721 of 2019 and No.35787 of 2019 were filed by respondent No.1/opposite party No.2 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. In the second CWP No.35787 of 2019, only notice of motion was issued and no interim order was passed in favour of opposite party No.2 and said CWP is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court for 10.08.2022. Learned counsel also submits that there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act, enabling a service provider to seek relief against the statutory authorities like petitioner/opposite party No.1-GMADA, as Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 9 opposite party No.2 is not 'consumer' within the meaning Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The default or liability of opposite party No.2 to pay statutory dues cannot be termed as 'consumer dispute'. Learned counsel further submits that the application dated 21.12.2021 filed by opposite party No.2 has been wrongly entertained by the District Commission. The impugned order is not only contrary to the provisions of law but also against the ratio of various judgments and the same is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submits that opposite party No.1-Colonizer is a chronic defaulter, as in the past a number of cheques were issued but dishonoured and a number of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are also pending against it. At the end, learned counsel further submits that opposite party No.2 is liable to pay EDC in terms of the licence and statutory agreement executed with the petitioner. All these aspects of the matter have not been taken into consideration by the District Commission while passing the impugned order.
11. Mr. Avilash Chattacharjee, learned counsel for respondent No.1/opposite party No.2 has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the grounds that there is willful breach and violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 30.01.2013 on the part of petitioner-GMADA, as huge amount has been collected from the colonizer. Even a single penny has not Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 10 been spent in the project. Petitioner-GMADA has illegally retained the amount paid towards EDC and has deprived the allottees of the interest, which is detrimental to the interest of the allottees as well. Learned counsel further submits that as per terms and conditions of the agreement, a number of duties and obligations were also cast upon the GMADA, but nothing has been done. The promoter has already completed all the internal development works of the project and has also provided internal roads, parks, streets and other activities but the petitioner-GMADA has failed to perform its duties and obligations. The external development activities in the project are the responsibility of GMADA but the same have not been completed in- spite of paying total EDC and no dues are pending towards EDC. At the end, learned counsel submits that as per policy, GMADA is supposed to chalk out an action plan by setting up a committee of senior officers belonging to different departments and authorities for completing the external development works in the colony.
12. Mr. Jatin Bansal, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant submits that the complainant was compelled to approach the District Commission for redressal of her grievances, as neither the external development activities have been completed nor internal. Learned counsel further submits that due to inaction on the part of both the opposite parties i.e. GMADA and Colonizer, the complainant had to file the complaint, which is still pending. Not only Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 11 financial loss has been caused but mental agony and harassment has also been caused to the complainant.
13. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. We have also carefully perused the impugned order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the District Commission and all other documents available on the file.
14. Admittedly, respondent No.1/opposite party No.2-M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. earlier filed CWP No.5721 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.03.2019 by issuing directions to the State of Punjab and GMADA (petitioner in this case) to decide the representation of opposite party No.2 within a period of two months by passing a speaking order.
15. In compliance of said directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court, a personal hearing was given to opposite party No.2 on 16.07.2019 and thereafter, the claim of opposite party No.2 was rejected by Chief Administrator, GMADA, by passing Speaking Order dated 19.11.2019 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, opposite party No.2 again approached the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of filing 2nd Civil Writ Petition No.35787 of 2019 (Annexure P-4) for quashing of said Speaking Order dated 19.11.2019 and by seeking the following reliefs, as mentioned in the prayer:
"a) Issue writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing speaking Order dated November 19, 2019, Annexure P/17, Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 12 being inter alia arbitrary, illegal, misleading and being on twisting of true and actual facts;
b) Issue writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the show cause notice dated August 26, 2019, Annexure P/16, being illegal and arbitrary, and also nothing but colourable exercise of powers vested in the Official Respondents as collectedly the Respondents have not carried out any External Development Works;
c) Issue writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondents to give the details of the amount collected towards EDC and towards the interest and penal interest on the instalments of External Development Charges and to refund such amount as there was no reason and/or occasion for the Respondents to levy the same, especially when External Development Works have not been carried out even after having collected the amount towards the External Development Charges;
d) Issue writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondents to give the details of the amount collected towards External Development Charges and actually spent in proving External Development Works for the benefits of the residents of the colony being developed/promoted by the Petitioner and refund the amount that would have accrued as an interest on the amount of External Development Charges, paid by the Petitioner and its Associates and lying deposited with the Respondents, though never utilized for External Development Charges;
e) Issue writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the purported order dated June 12, 2019, Annexure P/13, whereby the Respondents have, in any ill-considered and arbitrary manner, rejected the genuine request of the Petitioner for relaxation of penal interest charged on EDC along with 15% interest thereto;
f) Issue writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondents to fulfil and discharge their statutory and contractual obligations of carrying out External Development Works, including and especially developing and providing Roads and sewerage connections; and/or Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 13
g) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case;
h) stay recovery of further EDC from the Petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition;
i) call for the records of the case from the Respondent Authorities; ............................"
16. Admittedly, in the aforesaid Civil Writ Petition, no interim relief has been granted by the Hon'ble High Court in favour of opposite party No.2 and the same is still pending for 10.08.2022. During the pendency of the Civil Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court, respondent No.2/complainant-Kusha Gupta filed Consumer Complaint No.463 of 2021 before the District Commission, seeking certain reliefs, as mentioned above.
17. During the pendency of said complaint, an application (Annexure P-9) was filed by opposite party No.2 for issuing directions to petitioner/opposite party No.1-GMADA not to make any further demand of EDC charges. It is relevant to mention here that the prayer made in the said application had already been sought by opposite party No.2 in the above said CWP at point (h). Reply to said application was prepared by petitioner-GMADA but the same was not accepted by the District Commission on 25.02.2022 and the impugned order was passed. It has been mentioned in the impugned order that the request was made by the counsel for GMADA stating that the reply could not be filed earlier for want of Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 14 signatures of the competent authority. Reply was not accepted only on the ground that the order had already been dictated in the presence of a number of Advocates and no purpose would be served in accepting the reply.
18. The impugned order dated 25.02.2022 on the face of it is totally vague, perverse and arbitrary and against the basic principle of law, as the reasoning given therein appears to be meaningless. There was no reason in not accepting the reply in the Court when the Court was working. In case, the reply was not to be accepted in the Court, then the case could have been adjourned for the next date. In case, there was delay in filing reply, it could have been accepted subject to costs. On perusal of District Commission's record, it reflects that before passing the impugned order on 25.02.2022, counsel for petitioner-GMADA had appeared before the District Commission on earlier two continuous dates. Although, in the morning on 25.02.2022, none appeared on behalf of petitioner/opposite party No.1 but its counsel appeared at 12.37 p.m. along with reply to the application. In the reply, details of filing of two CWPs were also mentioned. It was not a justified or reasonable ground of not accepting the reply. The District Commission was not justified in not accepting the reply of opposite party No.1. The operative part of the impugned order was passed in the absence of opposite party No.1-GMADA and on the application filed by opposite party No.2, who had already sought similar Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 15 reliefs before the Hon'ble High Court by way of filing CWP No.35787 of 2019. We are unable to understand any justification in not accepting the reply. Moreover, the District Commission was well aware about the pendency of CWP before the Hon'ble High Court filed by proforma opposite party No.2, which is still fixed for hearing on 10.08.2022. No interim relief was granted by the Hon'ble High Court in the said case. It appears that the impugned order has been passed by the District Commission without any application of mind. While passing the impugned order, the District Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction by ignoring the fact that CWP filed by opposite party No.2 seeking similar relief is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court, wherein no interim relief has been granted. This action on the part of the District Commission is liable to deprecated.
19. On perusal of impugned order, it appears that the District Commission was under the impression that the complaint was filed by colonizer/opposite party No.2. Moreover, in case any dispute was there between both the parties, any of the parties could have gone to any Court of law in view of certain terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between them. Moreover, CWP No.35787 of 2019 filed by opposite party No.2, wherein same dispute is involved between both the parties, is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Once opposite party No.2/colonizer has approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of filing said CWP, opposite party No.2 was Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 16 estopped by its own act and conduct in filing the application for seeking same relief before the District Commission. Said application for seeking same relief has wrongly been allowed by the District Commission in-spite of knowing the fact that CWP No.35787 of 2019 is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. The parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between them and any Court/Tribunal cannot re-write the contract or issue directions contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract and that too in favour of the defaulting party.
20. The act and conduct of opposite party No.2 is liable to be deprecated, as the same not only appears to be not bonafide but with some ulterior motive, as knowing this aspect that CWP No.35787 of 2019 is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, still the application was filed before the District Commission. Said application was filed for same relief or grievances, which is/are subject matter of CWP No.35787 of 2019.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment passed in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Criminal Appeal No.463 of 2022 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10951 of 2019] decided on 22.03.2022 has also condemned the practice of forum-shopping. Relevant portion of Para-8 is reproduced as under:
Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 17
"8. ....This Court has condemned the practice of forum shopping by litigants and termed it as an abuse of law and also deciphered different categories of forum shopping.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Parkash & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2140 of 1998 decided on 20.04.1998 held as under:
""We certainly, cannot approve of any attempt on the part of any litigant to go "forum shopping". A litigant cannot be permitted `choice' of the `forum' and every attempt at "forum shopping" must be crushed with a heavy hand."
23. Further, opposite party No.2 has not disclosed in the application the material fact of filing of both the CWPs in the Hon'ble High Court seeking the similar relief. It amounts to concealment of material facts and not approaching the District Commission with clean hands. It is settled law that the person, who does not approach the Commission/Court with clean hands, is not entitled to any relief. Hon'ble National Commission in case M/s Mukherji Builders and Construction Corporation v. Dr. (Mrs.) Annupurna Mishra I (2014) CPJ 254 (NC) held in Para No.23 as follows:
""It is well settled that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, goes on filing meritless petitions in different Fora. Time and again courts have held that if any litigant approaches the court of equity with unclean hands, suppress the material facts, make false averments in the petition and tries to mislead and hoodwink the judicial Forums, then his petition should be thrown away at the threshold."Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 18
24. In another case, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853 , held in Para No.5 (relevant portion) as under:
"The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank- loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."
25. Further, the District Commission has passed by the impugned order without making out a case of irreparable loss and prejudice and also balance of convenience in favour of opposite party No.2-Colonizer. The impugned order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner/opposite party No.1 (GMADA) has been restrained from collecting EDC either from opposite party No.2-Colonizer or from the residents of the colony, including the complainant till further orders. It has been mentioned in the impugned order that in case such directions are not issued, the complainant along with other residents of the colony would suffer an Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 19 irreparable loss. The District Commission has gone to the extent of recording that petitioner/opposite party No.1 is at liberty to show-cause against the impugned order as to why the same be not made absolute till the final disposal of the complaint.
26. In the application, certain allegations have been made regarding collecting of EDC by the petitioner-GMADA. The prayer made in the application is also subject matter of CWP No.35787 of 2019, which is pending before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Under the garb of different facts, same claim has been sought in the present application. Opposite party No.2-M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. has been made proforma party, whereas in the complaint the allegations are against both the opposite parties i.e. opposite party No.1-GMADA and opposite party No.2-M/s Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. As such, opposite party No.2, who is builder/colonizer of the colony, cannot be said to be just a proforma party.
27. The only prayer made in the application was that opposite party No.1-GMADA be directed not to make or raise any further demand in lieu of EDC charges till disposal of main case. However, the District Commission has also gone beyond the pleadings, as directions have been issued to petitioner/opposite party No.1 to disclose as to how much amount has been collected from opposite party No.2 and spent in the name of EDC and how much amount has Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 20 been spent on sewerage, electricity and other external development works. A further direction has been issued by restraining opposite party No.1-GMADA from collecting any EDC charges either from opposite party No.2 or from any resident of the colony till further orders. How and on what basis these directions were issued has not been explained. In fact, the District Commission by its own has set up a new case in favour of the complainant and opposite party No.2. Thus, by passing of such directions beyond pleadings/prayer, a shadow of doubt is casted on the working of the President and Member of District Commission, who have passed the impugned order.
28. In view of the facts and discussion as mentioned above, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the District Commission is totally vague, irrelevant, illegal, arbitrary, contrary to provisions of the Act, without any application of mind and without any basis and has been passed by ignoring the pendency of CWP No.35787 of 2019 before the Hon'ble High Court, which has been filed by opposite party No.2 itself seeking same relief.
29. For the reasons recorded above, the present Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the District Commission is set aside. Consequently, the application dated 21.12.2021 filed by opposite party No.2 is Revision Petition No.23 of 2022 21 dismissed with costs of ₹1,00,000/- to be deposited by opposite party No.2 in the 'PGI Poor Patients Welfare Fund' within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
30. However, the observations made in this order are not having any bearing on the final outcome of the complaint, which is still pending before the District Commission.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (URVASHI AGNIHOTRI) MEMBER May 30, 2022.
(Gurmeet S)