- (1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the order dated 27.02.2006 and consequential letter dated 01.03.2006 (Annexures/9 & 10) issued by the respondent No.3 and further sought directions against the respondents for allotment of plot Nos.F-75 and 76 at the Industrial Area, Bapi, Dausa on the same terms and conditions which were applicable at the relevant time, or to allot any other plot in lieu of the said plots, or in the alternative to allot area of 4000 square meters in any other nearby industrial zone on the same terms and condition on which the allotment was made in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed to quash the order dated 10.02.2015 passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Rajasthan in appeal No.2257/10 and also the order dated 21.10.2010 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jaipur in complaint No.458/09 (847/07).
(2.) The short facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition are that the petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act of 1956 and the petitioner No.2 is a director of petitioner No.1 company. The petitioner No.1 had applied for the allotment of plot admeasuring approximately 4000 square meters under the scheme launched by the respondents to encourage industries at the Industrial Area, Bapi, Dausa. The petitioner's company had submitted the application on 21.03.2005 alongwith the demand draft for a sum of Rs.93,600/- towards 25% of the development charges and security amount of Rs.3,600/-. The said application of the petitioner was registered by the respondents at priority No.42. The respondents thereafter vide the letter dated 23.08.2005 directed the petitioner to make further deposit of Rs.1,40,000/- as additional development fees for supply of water to the area to be allotted to the petitioner. In the said letter, it was also mentioned that on the payment of such charges, the formal allotment letter will be issued. It appears that the petitioners did not deposit the said amount. It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioner company requested the respondents to issue the allotment letter and also to inform about the details of installments of the due amount, however the petitioner recevied the letter dated 27.02.2006 from the respondents informing the petitioners that due to non availability of plots for allotment, no allotment can be made to the petitioners and that the respondents have decided to refund the amount of Rs.1,29,565/-. Thereafter the respondents had sent the cheque of Rs.1,29,565/- to the petitioners, but the same was not encashed by the petitioners. The said action of the respondents was challenged by the petitioners by filing the complaint on 29.05.2007 before the District Consumer Forum, Jaipur Camp, Jaipur, praying for the allotment of the plots in question. The said complaint was resisted by the respondents by filing the reply. However, the District Consumer Forum partly allowed the said complaint of the petitioner vide the order dated 21.10.2010 whereby directions were issued to the respondents to refund sum of Rs.1,29,565/- alongwith the interest @ 6% per annum and a sum of Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses (Annexure/16). Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had preferred the appeal before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur, however the said appeal has also been dismissed vide the order dated 10.02.2015. The petitioners thereafter has approached this Court by way of present petition.
(3.) It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Deepesh Oswal for the petitioners that the State Commission while dismissing the appeal of the petitioners had held that there was no relationship of service provider and the consumer between the petitioner No.1 and the respondents, and therefore the said dispute cannot be said to be a consumer dispute. He further submitted that the respondents had already taken up the contention that the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, however the District Forum did not deal with the said contention but since the State Commission has held that there was no relationship of service provider and the consumer between the petitioner No.1 and the respondents, and hence the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present petition. He further submitted that it was the wrong legal advice given to the petitioners to go before the Consumer Forum and the petitioners could not be made to suffer because of the ill-advice given by the lawyer.;