Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

P.S. Sawhney vs A.K. Gupta on 14 November, 2011

  
 
 
 
 
 
 H
  
 







 



 

 H.P.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.  ---- 

 

  M.A. NO.871 OF 2009 

 

  In  

 

  FIRST APPEAL NO.486/2009. 

 

  ORDERS RESERVED ON 15.10.2011. 

 

  DATE OF DECISION: 14.11.2011 . 

 

In the matter of: 

 

P.S. Sawhney, 13, Sector 45-A,   Chandigarh  160 047. 

 

  Petitioner. 

 

 Versus 

 

A.K. Gupta, Superintending Engineer, HIMUDA, Nigam
Vihar, Shimla-171 002.  

 

  Respondent. 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

 Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member. 

Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.

For the Applicant/petitioner: Mr. P.S. Sawhney, applicant/petitioner in person.

For the respondent: Mr. Pawan Kaprate, Advocate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O R D E R:

Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member.
1.    

This order will dispose of M.A. No.871 of 2009 in Appeal No.486/2009.

 

2.     Brief background in which this application had been moved are being narrated hereinafter in detail. Applicant in the present application had alleged that the Complaint No.8/1999 was decided in favour of the applicant/petitioner by the Forum below vide order dated 30.5.2003 and in the operative part of the order, it is mentioned as follows:-

Accordingly we order that the next plot available with the OP-Board should be offered to the complainant..
It is also alleged in this application that the petitioner had prayed for maintaining of status quo in respect of the impugned plot and the same was duly granted by the District Forum below on 14.3.2007 and the further averments in the application are to the effect that in the said application the answering respondent Mr. A.K. Gupta, Superintending engineer, HIMUDA, Nigam Vihar, Shimla had filed a reply vide Annexure A/3 stating therein that the impugned plot is not more available for allotment to this petitioner as the same is allotted to the RWA, Solan, which is totally false and tantamount to perjury and it was also pleaded in the application that this is very serious matter involving honour and prestige of the District Forum and he had given this application before this Commission seeking direction for initiating appropriate proceedings against the respondent since majesty of lower Court is to be maintained and none dares to pollute the judicial stream and the main ground given in the application is that nobody is above the law and if Lord Jaffery Archer could be imprisoned for the act of perjury, on the same system of law, it is for this Court to decide its own course.

3.     Reply to this application was also filed by the respondent/non-applicant in this case and the main plea is that since the appeal against the order in the execution petition is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hence present application also deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice, however averments made in the application have been denied in toto by the respondent.

 

4.     We have heard Mr. P.S. Sawhney, applicant/appellant, who has personally argued his case, and also Mr. Pawan Kaprate, learned Counsel for the respondent. Mr. Sawhney who had appeared in person, has prayed for allowing of the present application and had prayed that the respondent-Superintending Engineer, HIMUDA should be prosecuted for perjury and filing false affidavit before the Forum below which he has filed before the District Forum, Shimla and Mr. Pawan Kaprate, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the present application is not legally maintainable before this Commission and as per him there is no force in the averments made in the application and it deserves to be dismissed.

   

5.     After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, we are of the considered view that in this case as per allegations made in the present M.A. to the effect that the respondent in the present case had committed perjury and has filed a false reply vide Annexure A/3 by filing a wrong affidavit which as per the averments made in the present M.A. was filed before the District Forum, Shimla, as such, under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cognizance of such offences punishable under Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199,200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228 of the Indian Penal Code can be taken by a Court, as per proviso to this Section, only on the complaint having been made in writing of that Court or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that in this case it would be appropriate to send this M.A. received from the applicant to the concerned District Forum for taking appropriate action as per law in the matter since it appears to us that the alleged offence of perjury as per averments made in the present M.A. had been committed by the respondent while filing reply by way of Annexure A/3 in E.A. No.33 of 2006 where the reply was filed in case of P.S.Sawhney Versus H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority.

Hence in view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, M.A. No.871/2009 which was filed before this Commission by the applicant/petitioner Shri P.S.Sawhney be sent by the Registry to the District Forum, Shimla, for taking appropriate legal action in the matter as deemed fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case since the alleged perjury as per averments made in this M.A. had been committed during the proceedings pending before the District Forum, Shimla, and Forum below is to apprise the applicant/petitioner Mr.P.S.Sawhney about the action taken in the matter and also to this Commission about the action taken in the matter. District Forum below is directed to dispose of the present application expeditiously. For a below may issue notice to the parties if deemed fit.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules.

Shimla, Announced on November 14, 2011.

( Chander Shekhar Sharma ) Presiding Member   ( Prem Chauhan ) Member