PRAVEEN BALWADA Vs. CHAIRMAN STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE complainant in this case is a Doctor by profession and is a public servant serving in the Jandk Animal Husbandry Department. The OP had advertised the allotment of Housing plots in Housing Colony Channi Rama, Jammu. The complainant accordingly applied after obtaining application form No. 630 which was accompanied by a deposit of Rs. 36,000. Thereafter, a lucky draw was drawn in favour of the applicants and the complainant's name figured in the said draw under the 'lucky Draw Scheme' and vide their office communication No. HB-CR-4707-08 dated 7. 2. 2000 he was informed that plot No. 187 measuring 30 ft x 60 ft in Housing Colony Pragati Vihar, Channi Rama, Jammu, was allotted in his favour. In pursuance of the terms and conditions of the offer he deposited a total amount of Rs. 2. 40 lakh as per the prescribed mode within the stipulated time but was denied the handing over the possession of the plot. The last instalment of Rs. 18,000 towards the final payment was paid by him on 10. 2. 2004. He personally visited the office of the OP many a times and made fervent requests which were followed by entreaties but all had been falling flat into deaf ears of the concerned officials with the result that he was left high and dry. Faced by such a non-cooperative attitude shown by the OP, finally on 23. 2. 2006, he filed the complaint herein and claimed the following reliefs:

(2.) IN the written version, the OP has taken the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint on the plea that allegations made therein are false and frivolous. It is also pleaded that officials of the OP have been working in the interest of the public in a public office and in the discharge of these functions on personal interest is involved and as such no question of any deficiency in service could arise. It is also pleaded that the possession of the plot could not be given to the complainant due to some unavoidable circumstances regarding which status report on priority basis had been called from the concerned Deputy General Manager. That as soon as that report could be received the possession would be handed over to the complainant. The delay which was caused in handing over the possession was due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the OP. On facts, the above stated pleas were reiterated with an additional plea that the complainant could claim only possession which would be handed over after receiving the status report from the concerned Deputy General Manager.

(3.) IN support of the complaint, the complainant has appeared as his own witness and the OP has examined Mrs. Frahat Qureshi, Secretary Jandk Housing Board. The complainant in his deposition given on affidavit has corroborated the allegations made in the complaint. In his cross-examination, nothing could be elicited by the OP to discredit his deposition. Mrs. Frahat Qureshi in her deposition made on affidavit has pleaded that while seeking the status report from the concerned Deputy General Manager some time was consumed and that as soon as that report was received from the Deputy General Manager it was found that a small portion from the location of the allotted plot had become disputed and again the report was sought from the concerned Deputy General Manager along with the original record and layout plan to verify the status on the spot. For this reason, the possession could not be handed over to the complainant and the matter would be settled at the earliest after receiving the required papers from the concerned Deputy General Manager. The witness had appeared in the Commission to depose in the case on 8. 11. 2006 and on that day in her cross-examination had admitted that matter was still under process.