Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri. Lt. Gen (Retd) BNBM Prasad, an ex-defense personnel, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. He sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Respondent No.2) in Appeal No.713/2017, which confirmed the order dated 22.07.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysore, in Complaint No.513/2015. Alternatively, he sought a writ of mandamus directing the Mysore Urban Development Authority (Respondent No.1) to allot Site No.566 measuring 40x60 feet situated in Hanchya Sathagally, B-Zone, Mysore, by handing over possession. The background of the dispute is that the petitioner had applied for allotment of a site from the Mysore Urban Development Authority, but the authority did not allot the site, leading the petitioner to file a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, and the State Commission upheld the dismissal. The petitioner then approached the High Court. The legal issues considered were whether the impugned order was sustainable and whether the petitioner was entitled to the allotment. The petitioner argued that the authority had failed to provide the site despite his eligibility and payment. The respondents contended that the allotment was subject to availability and that the petitioner had not complied with the terms. The court's analysis noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by way of appeal to the National Commission, but chose to file a writ petition. However, the court examined the merits and found that the petitioner failed to establish any deficiency in service or that the authority was obligated to allot the specific site. The court held that the concurrent findings of the forums below did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. The decision was to dismiss the writ petition, confirming the orders of the consumer forums.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Deficiency in Service - Housing Allotment - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) - The petitioner, an ex-defense personnel, sought allotment of a site from the Mysore Urban Development Authority. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, and the State Commission upheld the dismissal. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the authority, as the allotment was subject to availability and the petitioner did not comply with the terms. The writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Alternative Remedy - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court observed that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of approaching the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but chose to file a writ petition. However, the court proceeded to examine the merits and found no ground to interfere. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the petitioner's appeal is sustainable in law, and whether the petitioner is entitled to allotment of the site in question.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The impugned order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 11.01.2024 in Appeal No.713/2017 and the order of the District Forum dated 22.07.2016 in Complaint No.513/2015 are confirmed.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- deficiency in service
- housing allotment
- alternative remedy
- writ jurisdiction
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
