Allotment of GMADA plot to resident restored
Ramkrishan Upadhyay
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, August 9
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, has dismissed a review petition by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) against the order of the Consumer Commission Chandigarh for quashing the authority’s decision to cancel the allotment of a plot to a resident of Chandigarh.
GMADA quashed the allotment of a plot to a resident on the ground that the applicant failed to qualify the conditions laid down in the scheme.
According to the qualification criteria, the applicant must be a resident of Punjab or Chandigarh or residing in Punjab for the past 5 years. Regular employees of the Punjab Government or its undertakings and Punjab and Haryana High Court are eligible. Ad hoc, contractual, temporary or reemployed staff cannot apply under this category.
Deepshikha, a resident of Chandigarh, had applied for the allotment of a plot under category ‘A’ (general category). She also won draw of lots held on November 28, 2011.
However, the allotment was later cancelled on the ground that she was not a resident of Punjab/Chandigarh which was an essential eligibility condition. She had then approached the district forum, which had restored the allotment vide order dated September 25, 2012. The authority was directed to pay Rs50,000 compensation and Rs5,000 litigation cost. GMADA approached the state commission concerned, which also dismissed its appeal.
After that, GMADA filed a revision petition before the national commission, which noted that the applicant had submitted a residence certificate as well as service certificate from the Punjab and Haryana High Court. There is nothing in the certificate to suggest even remotely that the complainant was an ad hoc, contractual, temporary or reemployed employee of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The commission stated: “Though the certificate does not specifically refer to the complainant as a regular employee, in the absence of Punjab and Haryana High Court qualifying her as an ad hoc, contractual, temporary or reemployed employee, the certificate should have been construed to mean that the complainant was a regular employee of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In any case, nothing prevented the petitioner from writing a letter to the Punjab and Haryana High Court to obtain a clarification as to whether the complainant was a regular employee or an ad hoc, contractual, temporary or reemployed employee.”
“The petitioner, being a statutory authority, was expected to act fairly and reasonably instead of rushing to cancel the allotment without appropriate verification. No letter was sent to the complainant specifically asking her to obtain a certificate from the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the effect that she was a regular employee of the said High Court,” added the court.
