National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bangalore Development Authority vs R. Godapal Babu on 6 August, 2002
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the OP before the District Forum against whom orders have been passed by both the lower forums in the complaint filed by the Complainant and in appeal filed by the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner has filed this Revision Petition before us.
2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the Complainant was a registered applicant for a plot - initially under Rule 11(2)(e) and later on under 11(1)(4) of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984. While the former sub-section deals with the category of 'State Government Employees' the latter deals with the category of "General Public". Having failed in six attempts to get a site allotted under "State Government Employees" category, the Complainant tried his luck under "General Public" category and was allotted a site, lateron, which was cancelled by BDA. Alleging deficiency on the part of the Petitioner, a complaint was filed before the District Forum which allowed the complaint. The appeal filed by the Petitioner before the State Commission was also dismissed, hence this Revision Petition.
3. The only argument on which orders of both the lower forum are attempted to be assailed, relate to the interpretation of Rule 11 (2) of the 1984 Rules, which reads as under:-
(2) In respect of categories (a) to (h) the Authority shall consider the case of each application on its merits and shall have regard to following principles in making selection:-
(i) The marital status of the applicant, that is, whether he is married or single and has dependent children;
(ii) The income of the applicant and his capacity to purchase a site and build a house for his residence Provided that this condition shall not be considered in the case of applicants belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Tribes.
(iii) The number of times the applicant had applied for allotment for a site and the fact that he did not secure a site earlier though he was eligible and had applied for a site;
(iv) The fact that the land belonging to the applicant has been acquired by the Authority for the formation of the layout for which he has applied;
4. It is the contention of the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that under Rule 11(2)(iii) number of attempts in a given category holds the key to became eligible for a site under that category. It is his case that the District Forum's interpretation as affirmed by the State Commission that sum of all the attempts made under all and every category should be deemed the attempts by the applicant, is not the correct interpretation of this rule, hence the order of District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission is bad and need to be set aside. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant that there is nothing wrong with the orders passed by both the lower forums. They are as per rules on the subject. The order of the State Commission calls for no interference.
5. The whole controversy boils down to - is the interpretation of Rule 11 (12) (iii) -
6. A plain reading of the sub-section produced above makes it amply clear that at beset it is silent on the point that number of attempts to be read in each category separately or altogether, as interpreted by both the lower forums. It is settled law when the law is silent on a point, benefits will go to the plaintiff, complainant in this case. In our view the spirit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.K. Gupta v. Union of India {(1994) 1 SCC 243} is that a more liberal interpretation of Rules etc. need to be given by Statutory Authority while dealing with a common man. We having nothing on record to show in what circumstances the complainant was allotted the site, which was later cancelled. Cancellation without sufficient ground is certainly a deficiency. There are four sub-sections which need to be gone into by the Authority while making allotment and not only 11 (2) (iii). Be that as it may, in our view District Forum's order as affirmed by the State Commission is just and proper and calls for no interference. Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 3,000/-.