M/S ASHOKA BUILDSTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these two review petitions have been filed against common order dated 22.07.2016 passed by this Court in two special appeals, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) These review petitions have been filed by the petitioners M/s. Ashoka Marbles Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ashoka Buildstate Developers Pvt. Ltd. seeking review of the order dated 207.2016 whereby special appeals filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the learned Single Bench dated 18.08.2015 were dismissed and judgment of the Single Bench was upheld.

(3.) Review petitions have been filed by the petitioners on the premise that another Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and Others, (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 2002/2011 and other connected matters decided on 07.12.2015) has taken contrary view and not only held the writ petition maintainable against the judgment of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur, but also held that such forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the respondents therein were well aware of the fact that there was encroachment on the plot in question and as per the resolution of UIT, Jodhpur dated 09.01.1997, the case falls in 'as is where basis'/'existing sites' category and therefore, the Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short 'the Act') did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Division Bench in that judgment relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ganeshlal v. Shyam, (2014) 14 SCC 77 Learned counsel for the review petitioners argued that this Court in the present case was required to decide whether the petitioners' case was of "livelihood" by means of self-employment or whether it came under the scope of commercial activity as contemplated by Section 2(i) (d) of the Act and whether it either came under "goods" &/or "services" or that the same was "immovable property" and that the transaction in the present case was incomplete and prospective one. It is, therefore, prayed that by recalling the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the matter may be referred to the Larger Bench.