National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rourkela Development Authority vs Saraswathi Beura on 7 May, 2007
Equivalent citations: III(2007)CPJ309(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This is an Application for clarification of the order passed by this Commission on 28.8.2006 in Revision Petition No. 2366/2006. The clarification sought through application dated 5.9.2006 allegedly relates to the question of jurisdiction which, it is stated, has not been dealt in the impugned order.
2. We have carefully gone through the memo of revision petition filed before us as also the orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission. There is no plea taken before any of the lower Fora on the point of jurisdiction. It appears that for the first time, a ground taken before this Commission in the Revision Petition, reads as under:
Because the Forums below suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction in view of the provisions of the Act.
3. Clarification is sought in support of this contention on the ostensible plea that whether, "the agreement of licence will come under the provisions of the Act? The basic question is, grant of licence for running a commercial shop does not come within the provisions of this Act".
4. We have carefully gone through the order passed by both the lower Fora and find that no such plea appears to have been taken before both the lower Fora, i.e., the District Forum and State Commission. Before us question of jurisdiction has been raised? But under what provision of which Act the jurisdiction was challenged, had not been made clear in any of the grounds of Revision Petition. Since this is a question of Housing and as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lticknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC) : AIR 1994 SC 787, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the definition of Service is wide enough and does include the "service" rendered by a Statutory Authority in respect of Housing, including the shops for commercial purposes. It is to be noticed that Section 2(1)(d)(ii) at the relevant time did not exclude the services hired for commercial purposes.
5. At no stage in the whole material brought on record, the petitioner raised the question of jurisdiction relatable to 'agreement of licence' in view of which this Revision Petition or Miscellaneous Application for clarification, has no legs to stand on.
6. As per provisions of the Act, the National Commission can review orders only if there is error apparent on the face of record. As per discussion above, since no details or basis for challenging the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora was given out in the Memo of Revision Petition or for that matter no ground relatable to shops being given under licence, hence barring our jurisdiction, was raised clearly and specifically, thus, in our view, it cannot now be made a ground for review, as also the fact that in the absence of any such plea taken in the pleadings, revision petition, it cannot be said that there is any error apparent on the face of record.
7. In our view, the petitioner is trying his case by way of taking additional ground in the application for clarification, which cannot be permitted.
8. In view of above, the Miscellaneous Application has no merit, hence dismissed.