Repeated Rape of Justice

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.
com
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com
REPEATED RAPE
OF
JUSTICE
Other books by the same Author :

Pangs of a Petitioner for Justice
Scam of Illegal Promotions (in press)
Me Judice (Ed.)
Justice Disgraced
Sikhism and the Sikhs (Ed.)
Was Bhindranwale Congress Creation?
Difficulties break some men but make others.
Nelson Mandela
REPEATED RAPE
OF
JUSTICE
Baldev Singh
M.A.
2014
REPEATED RAPE OF JUSTICE

by
BALDEV SINGH
245, URBAN ESTATE,
KAPURTHALA - 144 601 (INDIA)
MOB. 098151-20919
Email : Baldevsingh300@gmail.com
ISBN 978-93-5126-165-0
First Edition 2014
Price: Rs. 100-00
Published by
THE AUTHOR
Printers:
PRINTWELL, 146, INDUSTRIAL FOCAL POINT, AMRITSAR.
This book is dedicated to the memory

of those freedom fighters
who had sacrificed every bit of their life
so that their country could be freed
from foreign yoke and
its people could feel the glow of
freedom, prosperity, equality, brotherhood and
justice.
And also to those who are struggling
to preserve its freedom and
to save it from falling into
hands of rascals, roughs, scoundrels,
who are bent upon destroying it.
CONTENTS
Preface
Nehru protects corrupt Krishna Menon
How Shiekh Govt. dismissed by Nehru
Jazia in Hindustan
What is on Record of Case File
Wolf and Lamb Story
9
17
19
22
28
29
Order dt. 16.11.2010 of National Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
(Appendix-I)
39
Special Leave Petition No. 13719/2011

(Appendix-II)
40
Order dt. 4.7.2011 of the Supreme Court

(Appendix-III)
106
SC Registrars letter dt. 7.7.2011

(Appendix-IV)
107
Oath of Office of Supreme/

High Court Judges (Appendix-V)
108
Higher Judiciary Guilty of Seven Sins:

Justice (Retd.) Ruma Pal (Appendix-VI)
109
Know Thy Leaders and Rulers (Appendix-VII)
111
PREFACE
Every human being has a dream of building his own house
to live in. This dream is in all living beings also like birds,
animals etc. Only snakes do not build their own living places.
God or nature has not given hands to snakes for building their
protection places. They capture rats' or other animal's holes
made by them for their own living and protection. My desire
to own a house was not different from others. I had no money
to buy a plot by paying lump sum amount but could purchase
on instalments. I was looking for Government advertisements
so that I could apply, and if lucky in draw of lots, could buy
one. During 1984 I was posted at Patna and had seen with own
eyes what it meant to be a bearded and turbaned person,
therefore, decided to live in Punjab. Earlier also such things had
happened with the Sikhs during 1710, 1713-18 and during
1947. Wise man learns from own experience and wiser from
others' experience but fools don't learn at all. (As per Justice
Markandey Katju, 90% of Indians are fools/idiots. I am not sure
in which category he falls 10% or 90%). I have been applying
for plots in all Punjab Govt. ads but was not lucky. Later on
I came to know that luck comes with money. If you apply and
bribe the right person in that agency your name appears in draw
of lots. But I did not like to adopt that mean. PUDA Jalandhar
advertised for plots at Kapurthala. At that time I was posted at
Amritsar. Kapurthala was a princely state founded by Jassa
Singh Ahluwalia, one of the 11 Misals of Pre-Ranjit Singh period
and most turbulent period of the Sikhs facing many attacks of
Ahmad Shah Abdali. A Punjabi phrase had developed, "KHADA
PITA LAHE DA, BAAKI AHMAD SHAHE DA". It meant that
whatever you eat and drink is yours; rest all belongs to Ahmad
Shah, who will loot and take away, everything that is left.
10
Preface
Sardar Jassa Singh was honoured by the community for his

services as a Sultan-ul-Quam. He was leader of Dal Khalsa
during attack by the Afghan invader Abdali and had over 50
deep wounds on his body. He had rescued 2200 Indian women
at Goindwal being taken away by Ahmad Shah Abdali after he
had won battle of Panipat in the year 1761. During those days
Sher Shah Suri Marg (G.T. Road, now NH 1) was passing
through Goindwal. Later on the British changed its course after
capturing Punjab kingdom. I was happy to live in such a city.
I applied for it and got it through draw of lots in March 2000.
It was barely 20 Km. from my village Goindwal. I visited the
site, there was no sign of any colony. It looked like jungle or
barren land. After allotment letter came in March 2001, I visited
again and found position was same as earlier. Actually what
PUDA and other Govt. agencies are doing that after allotment
of plots 25% payment of plots is demanded and with that money
they start the process of planning and infrastructure construction
after making final payments to farmers from whom land is
acquired. Tenders are called for construction of roads, sewerage,
water tanks etc. Conditions like 11 and 12 are inserted in
allotment letters by Govt. agencies and private builders to
dodge the consumer. Ground reality is very much different from
actual position and to the detrimental of interest of consumers
for whom the Consumer Protection Act-86 is made by the
Parliament. Perception of Legislature, executive and judiciary
are different in practice. Govt. ads of JAGO GRAHAK JAGO ,
says it provides relief to consumer on following grounds/issues :
Relief available to consumers!
l Removal of defects from the goods.
l Replacement of the goods.
l Refund of price paid.
l Award of compensation for loss or injury suffered.
l Removal of defects or deficiencies in the service.
l To discontinue the unfair trade practices or restrictive
trade practices.
l To withdraw hazardous goods from being offered for
sale.
Preface
l
11
To issue corrective advertisement to neutralize the

effect of misleading advertisement.
So far no consumer has challenged these arbitrary

provisions 11 and 12 as ultra vires being arbitrary, unreasonable
and fraud upon innocent customers who are totally unaware
of legal intricacies and also does not want to DHAKE KHAO in
court - Kachehri. It needs some rich consumer and dynamic
advocate to challenge it and bring relief to common consumers,
who is poor and not so capable. It was for these aforementioned
reasons that infrastructure at PUDA was not ready and
conditions 11 and 12 could never have been implemented by
PUDA itself, that a 3 years moratorium for construction was
decided by H.O. PUDA, Mohali from 12.6.2002 to 12.6.2005
vide its letter dt. 5.10.2004. I visited the site during December
2003 from Goindwal again, even at that time work on
infrastructure was going on. PUDA was not in position to give
possession and demarcation as per condition 11 of the allotment
letter within 60 days. Rather it was deficiency in service on the
part of the PUDA to have failed to implement its own condition.
This condition had become non-operational by own act of PUDA
after deciding 3 years of moratorium for construction but
Hon'ble Justice G.S. Singhvi dismissed my petition on the
ground (orally) that condition 11 was not read by me being an
educated person. But written orders are entirely different.
(Appendix-III, p. 106). He is highly educated and highly placed
constitutional authority appointed by the H.E. the President of
India mainly for the purpose of reading, hearing and deciding
keeping in mind the merits of the Case, Oath of Office and the
Constitution. That is why Distt. Forum, Jalandhar, who was
locally located, was aware of the ground reality and had
allowed my petition on merits and ordered,
"Respondent would not charge any non-construction
fee till demarcation and possession is given to the
complainant."
It was also argued and that the Oxford dictionary meaning
12
Preface
of word 'MORATORIUM' was read out, 'A TEMPORARY

PROHIBITION OF AN ACTIVITY'. That the National Consumer
Commission has made wrong interpretation of the word
moratorium. But it did not cut ice with him and the SLP was
dismissed. I was aghast that the same Bench had taken Central
Government by horns in "2G spectrum scam", but in this
case.....? I would request readers to go through cursory reading
of the SLP, which is part of this book in hand. Any independent
and legal mind would agree that grave injustice has been done
not only to the petitioner but to the whole consumer
community. It also amounts to great relief to the agency and
other agencies dealing with housing of citizens for their illegal,
arbitrary actions and also a lost opportunity to plug massive
corruption and arbitrariness of officers at every stage of house
builders/housing agencies. Owners who are suffering helplessly
like lamb who are put before wolf their genuine arguments are
ignored and eaten up. Every day is day of wolf.
Most notable and interesting point in this case is that I had
filed complaint/petition before Distt. Forum, Jalandhar with
prayers that I was charged 15% interest on housing instalments
against National policy about housing and that the sanction of my
building plan was not issued inspite of the fact that fee and papers
are submitted. That these two points have never ever been
adjudicated by State Consumer Commission and National
Commission. And the Hon'ble Supreme Court never thought
it is worth consideration at all. That at State Consumer Commission
Member Piyare Lal Garg did not allow me to argue and when I
tried to argue he snubbed me and did not allow me to speak, as
if I was criminal before him, even criminals have right to speak,
(was he influenced? It is a matter of speculation). Retired Army
Officer was sitting like a dumb doll. He was presiding member.
Earlier my case was listed before Justice S.N. Aggarwal, First
Bench. For final hearing it was shifted to Second Bench. Why?
At National Consumer Commission, New Delhi when
Notice was issued, I had developed some hope for justice but
when final order was passed much water had flown the Ganga
Mayia. I reproduce the Order dt. 12.7.2010 :
Preface
13
"Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, according

to him, when the respondent authority itself granted a
moratorium for construction of a house for a period of
3 years from 12.3.2002 to 11.6.2005, there was no
question of the authorities charging extension fee for
the year 2005 and 2006. By virtue of the moratorium,
the petitioner complainant was entitled to commence
the construction within 3 years after 12.6.2005.
The point raised by the petitioner needs consideration.
Issue notice to the respondent returnable on 21.9.2010.
Meanwhile, operation of the impugned order is stayed.
That the respondent after seeking three adjournments to
file reply did not file any reply/written statement to the notice.
The respondent was also fined Rs. 2500/- for not filing reply
by Justice K.S. Gupta. At next hearing he had retired and Justice
R.C. Jain took over as presiding member. That made the
difference? Final arguments took place on 12.2.2011. On the
day of arguments as soon as I started arguing my case, presiding
member Justice R.C. Jain was reluctant to allow me to argue,
as if I was going to waste Hon'ble Commission's time. They
usually allow lots of time to advocates. However, Member of
the bench Mr. S.K. Naik told him that he is arguing on
moratorium issue. Then I was allowed and I read out letter dt.
5.10.04 of the PUDA granting 3 years of moratorium for
construction. Then I also argued that no reply is filed to the
notice, that 15% interest is charged, no policy on interest is filed
by the respondent, no notice was issued to demand extension
fee, no sanction of building plan is delivered to the petitioner.
While I was arguing advocate for the respondent was asked why
no reply is filed even after taking 3 adjournments, that no policy
letter about interest is filed in two lower Forums and no decision
in terms of condition 12 is filed to charge extension fee. That
the decision will be taken what is on the record of the file. That
at no stage meaning or interpretation of word 'MORATORIUM'
was discussed by any one but strangely enough my petition was
14
Preface
dismissed on the ground that the petitioner/complainant

misunderstood the meaning of word, 'moratorium'. That the
relevant part of the order is reproduced,
"It appears that the petitioner/complainant has
misunderstood the meaning of moratorium. The meaning
of the word 'moratorium' as per Oxford Dictionary is 'a
legal authorization to debtors to postpone payment.' No
doubt the respondent/opposite party/PUDA had provided
a moratorium period of three years w.e.f. 12th of June,
2002. In this case the decision of the respondent/
opposites party /PUDA can only be interpreted to mean
that allottees were not required to pay extension fee/
charges, if they were liable to pay, during the period 12th
June 2002 to 11th of June, 2005. The moratorium did
not mean waiver of the extension fee."
There is Punjabi proverb, JUTT MACHLA KHUDA NOON
LE GAYE CHOR (if any person becomes unreasonable and
biased, he thinks God has been stolen by thief). That the
meaning of word 'moratorium' in the Concise Oxford Dictionary,
Eleventh Edition of 2004 is,
"a temporary prohibition of an activity.
And
Law a legal authorization to debtor to postpone
payment".
That the PUDA is very powerful Govt. agency/dept. in
men, material, money and maneuvering things in their favour.
Individuals like me, who are weak and poor, are like MakhiMachhar before them, unless God stands with me like Lord
Krishna stood with Pandavas.
That the conditions 11 and 12 were countered and
contradicted by me before National Consumer Commission as
follows :
"4. That the State Commission has erred in ignoring the
averment of the appellant that condition 12 of the
allotment letter says,
Preface
15
"In case of non-construction of the plot, on your own

request, you may be allowed extension in time for
construction of the building on payment of extension
fees as determined by PUDA from time to time."
That at what time and rate the respondent had
determined/decided to start charging extension fees is
not placed on record, either at Ld. Distt. Forum or
Hon'ble State Commission, therefore, the whole action
of the respondent PUDA is arbitrary, illegal and not in
accordance with law.
5. That the State Commission has erred in ignoring the
fact that after declaring moratorium for 3 years from
12.6.02 conditions of allotment letter No 11 and 12
become non-operational by the own act of the
respondent, therefore, allowing appeal on this ground
is erroneous and wrong. That the delay in sanction of
Zoning plan was due to the fact that infrastructure of
road, sewerage, water pipes were not laid, nor electric
polls were erected, therefore, not fit to give demarcation
and possession of plots. No one could build a house
under such circumstances. That the respondent was not
in position to give demarcation and possession of plots."
8. That the State Commission has erred to ignore the
averment of the appellant that sanction of plan of plot
No 245 of the appellant is not delivered to him. Sanction
remains in papers only."
Actually my troubles started with non payment of bribe
for sanction of building plan. My architect asked for Rs 2000
for his work and Rs 2000 for giving it to PUDA people for their
'service' charges. It is uncivilized to call it a bribe in modern
India shining: Bharat Desh Mahan Hai, Har Koi Yahan Beiman
Hai. The ground reality is that if any one wants to get sanction
of building plan in any Government agency like PUDA,
Municipal Corporation, Improvement Trust etc. in any part of
India one has to pay bribe for its sanction. It is so routine matter
16
Preface
that no one objects to it and scumbs like lamb before wolf. I

am sure if Justice G.S. Singhvi, after retirement, wants to built
his house at Jodhpur he will have to go through same process,
if he does not throw his weight being Judge of Apex Court.
I told my architect to prepare building plan and other
papers of my house and give it to me, I will send it myself and
I do not want to pay extra Rs 2000. I had developed bad habit
of not paying such money. I am a bad person but 'good' people
do not hesitate in paying such money. I would like to give few
examples of political leaders and their views, before I proceed
further with my narration. When some one talked to Pandit
Jawahar Lal Nehru about growing corruption immediately after
independence. His stoic reply was that money remains in India
it is not going outside the country. When same concern was put
up before Mrs Indira Gandhi, her reply was that corruption is
world wide phenomenon. At this juncture money had already
started going and pilling up in foreign countries especially
Switzerland. 'Honest' Manmohan Singh cannot see corruption
around. People are being fed on his personal honesty. A. Raja
is recent revelation but earlier Arjun Singh had played havoc
with higher education, especially in privatization of it. The
Honest, Economist P.M. could see nothing bad in it and did not
check him. A recent classic example of our politicians came to
fore when Bhajan Lal died. People in India are all praise for dead
man. It is not good to talk bad about dead man. Amongst his
good qualities a person narrated his first hand experience with
him. A farmer complaint to Bhajan Lal that Patwari is
not giving farad of his land and is demanding Rs 500/- and "I
am a poor farmer, I cannot pay". Bhajan Lal quickly took out
Rs 500/- note from his pocket and gave it to farmer for giving
it to Patwari and also advised the farmer that these government
employees have to be looked after by us all. He was most
favourite chief minister of Mrs. Indira Gandhi and Partap Singh
Kairon most favourite of her father Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru.
Kairon was indicted by Das Commission. I give two glaring
examples how indicted Krishna Menon favourite of Pt. Jawahar
Preface
17
Lal Nehru, first PM and coming from a family of three

generation freedom fighters, was helped to escape punishment
and also appointed as Cabinet-Minister. And how Sheikh Mohd.
Abdullah was dismissed as CM of J&K in 1953. Both were one
man decisions in the largest democracy in the world. M.O.
Mathai was Spl. Asst. to then P.M. from 1946 to 1959 and used
to live in P.M.'s house and was available to Nehru 24 hrs every
day. This is first hand information. If this is our biggining then
why blame others now?
NEHRU PROTECTS CORRUPT KRISHNA MENON

I quote M.O. Mathai in Krishna Menon case:
"In the summer of 1955, aware of my good relations
with the Comptroller and Auditor-General A.K. Chandra
and Defence Secretary M.K. Vellodi, both of whom were
known to be bitter enemies of Krishna Menon, Nehru
asked me to privately discuss with them the question
of finally disposing of the various scandals in which
Krishna Menon was involved. The major scandals were:
The Jeep Contract : Owing to difficulties in obtaining

jeeps urgently needed by the army for the Kashmir
operations, Krishna Menon struck a deal with an
adventurous intermediary called Potter who had a
private firm with a capital of twenty pounds. Generous
advances were paid to Potter who supplied second hand,
reconditioned jeeps. When the jeeps arrived in India, the
army experts rejected them as unserviceable, Krishna
Menon was asked to stop further payments to Potter.
Government suffered a loss of 136,052, equivalent to
Rs. 1.8 million; and Potter had further claims.
Procurement of Ammunition and Grenades : Again,
these were through adventurous intermediaries who
were men of no substance. The principal one was a man
called Cleminson who was involved in a criminal case
18
Preface
before. Potter was also brought in, most probable to

compensate him for his claims in the jeep contract.
Reckless extra payments were authorized by Krishna
Menon. The excess payments, which became a total loss
to government, were estimated at about 500,000 or
about Rs. 7.2 millions.
In both these deals there had been procedural and
technical irregularities and errors of judgement both at
the stage of the negotiations and later at the stage of
interpretation and enforcement of the terms of the
contracts.
Advance Payment for the Acquisition of the Gaiety

Theatre : It was Krishna Menon's utter and inexcusable
stupidity, which some people termed as a diabolical
swindle by him, to have paid 17,000 or about
Rs. 228,000 in July 1950 to a private company floated
in December 1949 with a nominal capital of 1000 and
a paid up capital of 2. The adventurer Cleminson was
involved in this also. The amount had to be ultimately
written off by Government. I closely questioned Krishna
Menon on this and asked him about the circumstances
surrounding the deal. I reminded him that in 1950 there
were no Kashmir operations ! Krishna Menon was
uncomfortable, evaded my questions, and said, "Old
man, get me a cup of tea." And while he was sipping
tea someone else came in, and Krishna Menon heaved
a sigh of relief and left.
Then there were allegations about the lease of residential
premises, and exchange of cars. But they were
comparatively of minor matters.
(Reminiscences of the Nehru Age, p. 175)
Again, I quote M.O. Mathai to show how Shiekh Abdullah

as CM was dismissed. It was not a cabinet decision. One man
Pt. J.L. Nehru decided it and implemented it without making
any official record of it, without taking any approval from the
Preface
19
Union Cabinet. An illegal order was implemented. Now

Supreme Court has ordered in 2013 that no oral orders should
be implemented. Officers should insist on written orders.
Operation Blue Star of June 84 was also oral order of Indira
Gandhi. Now, it is revealed in RTI inquiry. Lt. Gen. Sinha had
asked for written order in 1981 to arrest Bhindrawala. He was
not promoted by her as Army Chief. Beautiful faces ugly minds
and actions. The seeds of Emergency and the autocratic Indira
Gandhi can be seen in her father, when she proclaimed internal
emergency without Union Cabinet approval.
HOW SHIEKH GOVT. DISMISSED BY NEHRU

One day in 1953 Nehru called me and said he wanted
something brief to be typed, but did not wish to give
it to any PA. I noted down the points and some of the
phrases he wanted to use. Then I locked myself in my
bedroom and typed out on a plain sheet of paper a
"Memorandum of Instructions." It was not addressed to
anyone; it was not signed by anyone. It contained no
date, not even the place. Ajit Prasad Jain, a Minister and
close confidant of Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, took the sealed
"Memorandum of Instructions" by air to Srinagar to be
delivered to Yuvraj Karan Singh, the Sadar-e-Riyasat
(Governor) of Kashmir. Karan Singh was to dismiss
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah from the office of Prime
Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, and to appoint Bakshi
Ghulam Mohammad as his successor. No further action
was to be taken against Sheikh Abdullah unless he
indulged in violent activities or instigated violence."
(My days with Nehru, p. 241)
'Jago Grahak Jago.' A PUDA employee rightly said,

"corruption starts from top. We make small amount but
top people make crores and crores and nothing happens
to them. They have money to pay to big vakils and
Judges. We are poor fellows."
20
Preface
Quality of leaders from Indian sub-continent are such that

they look for territory, land to grab it and not good for people
and welfare of people living in it. It is easy for leaders to
misguide them in the name of patriotism, nationalism, religion,
region, caste, Biradari etc. Those who fight against corruption
and seek justice are anti-national and terrorists? If today's youth
adopts Bhagat Singh's methodology to express their displeasure
with present governance what method Govt. will take against
them? When I was student, our elders used to tell us, "If money
is lost, nothing is lost, if health is lost, something is lost, if
character is lost, everything is lost." Now it is for politicians and
people to assess what they have lost. Gang rapes take place
because we have lost character. Some of our leaders and elders
are of unethical and immoral character.
I had sent my building plan to PUDA by Regd. post instead
of sending it through my architect. Those who pay extra fee and
send through architect get sanction of building plan by hand
(HATHO HATH) because necessary greece money for movement
of file was already given. In my case there was no response even
after reminders dt. 10.11.06 and 10.1.07 and ultimately I had
to file complaint/petition before the Distt. Forum, Jalandhar on
13.4.07. Upon notice PUDA filed reply stating therein that
building plan has been sanctioned and annexed photocopy of
sanction letter dt. 20.10.06 but no copy of actual building plan
was annexed. It was a news to me that the building plan had
been sanctioned. Had I paid the bribe the sanction plan would
have come to me by hand but I did commit 'criminal' act by not
paying the bribe and the sanctioned plan is not delivered to me
till date and no Hon'ble forum/Court took notice of my
pleadings. That Hon'ble Justice G.S. Singhvi dismissed my SLP
on the ground that I had not read condition 11 of the allotment
letter. That I would like to inform reader that at no time the
respondent PUDA ever raised this issue of condition 11 or the
meaning of word 'moratorium' at any stage, orally or in writing.
That when Babri Masjid demolition case came before Hon'ble
Preface
21
Supreme Court on 9.5.2011, in first hearing itself impugned

order was stayed on the ground that none of the party had asked
for division of the disputed site, therefore, bad in law and stayed
it. In my case, perhaps they thought an individual was arguing
his case in person. Except for Distt. Forum all others repeatedly
raped justice and law and got away with it! I think that upto
National Consumer Commission level influence of PUDA's top
brass could work. But at Supreme Court level something else has
worked, may be my two books Justice Disgraced and Pangs of
a Petitioner for Justice had to do something? These books were
written not to downgrade the Judiciary or the legal profession
but to expose individuals who are bringing bad name to the
entire Judiciary and damaging the fibre of Indian constitution,
or was it at the instance of Sr. Advocate? Judiciary is one of the
three pillars of our governing system, other two being Parliament/
Legislature and Executive. Media print and electronic, is
considered very important in democracy, some call it fourth
pillar. Judiciary is the last hope of any aggrieved Indian. If this
hope is lost country is doomed. Guru Nanak said, RAJE SHEEN
MUKADAM KUTTE (Rulers are lions and Judges dogs) during
Babars regime.
Not doing justice amounts to cruelty, atrocity and to do
justice is noble but difficult, so some choose easy way out and
do injustice. To tolrate injustice is very difficult. Injustice begets
violence. Justice G.S. Singhvi himself admitted that justice
remains an 'illusion' for millions of poor people. Justice still a
cynical phrase for common man: CJI (Sunday Times, 10.11.13)
Some people could be most cruel at times not withstanding their
public stand of peace, love, justice, non violence etc. Some
Judges are after big fish. Big fish fetch big money. Small fish like
me are for eating purpose only. Just as lamb is for eating purpose
for wolf. An PUDA employee told me, "Corruption starts from top
(This has proved wrong in case of Dr. Manmohan Singh, he does
not take bribe but corruption flourished under him). We lower
people are always scared of being caught red handed but big
people escape even if they are caught." He further said, "one top
22
Preface
Punjabi politician was given long stay by Supreme Court on

purely technical ground. They could have decided the case early
when his opponent was at the helm of political affairs. No
witness would have turned hostile and he could have been
declared guilty of corruption. Recently O.P. Chautala was held
guilty and jailed for 10 years." He gave another example,
"Another big M.P. was held guilty by High Court for murder but
his case is pending in Supreme Court for several years. Similar
is the case of a film star. Why it cannot be decided soon, after
stay is granted? If patwari, clerk, peon or constable is held guilty
for taking bribe he is dismissed but nothing happens to IAS and
IPS officers involved in corruption in crores."
I did not contest my cases for money sake alone. It was
a fight for implementation of law, against corruption and
against injustice. All courts are created to protect law and to
curb its violation and injustice. Financially I was looser in all
cases except that of addition of 5 years in pension calculation
under regulation 29 (5), which ultimately benefited over 70000
VRS-2000 optees of all nationalized banks, of which details are
given in my book, Pangs of a Petitioner for Justice.
JAZIA IN HINDUSTAN
The difficult procedure for procuring plot and constructing
house, and delayed or no action on applications/representation
of consumer breeds corruption. Consumer is asked by officials
to come again and again to office on flimsy grounds like, 'SAHIB
NAHIN HAIN', 'DEALING HAND NAHIN HAI' etc. compels
harassed old person to offer money for getting job done, or orally
consumer would be told by dealing hand or agent, 'it will cost
you huge amount, I will get it done for lesser charges'.
Sometimes dealing employee will flatly tell "if you do not pay
I will fix you and make you pay higher charges on other account",
and "if you pay I will get relief and you will have to pay less."
For the sake of bribe employee may put state into loss. The
strategy is to delay the matter. Force the sufferer to meet the
Preface
23
dealing hand and negotiate bribe money. In olden days Jazia was
levied from Hindus for their pilgrimage by the then rulers,
Mughals. Guru Nanak said ZORI MANGE DAN VE LALO (Forced
to pay donations). Now the present days rulers are forcibly
taking bribe. Then what is the difference and change from
monarchy to democracy and from slavery to freedom? The
cumbersome procedure created by the PUDA is responsible for
corruption:
After allotment of plot one has to apply for sanction of
building plan through an PUDA approved architect where the
office is located. Architect will look after interest of PUDA
employee and not yours or that of owner of plot because he has
to deal with employees daily in all other matters. He can afford
to dodge an consumer but not employees. After sanction, apply
for demarcation and possession of plot at PUDA office. Then
apply for sanction of water connection and pay fee for water and
sewerage connection. After starting construction apply for DPC
completion. Then for first floor and second floor and at last for
final completion. At every stage/step bribe is to be paid by
owner/consumer/customer otherwise orally you are threatened
for higher fines delay in all matters and completion certificate.
Owner at this stage is already harassed by labour contractors of
various types like mason, marble, electric, plumber, carpenter
etc. and above all depleting funds for construction of house and
gets fed up with life itself. For completition certificate you are
asked to go to approved architect. My house was complete in all
respects as per sanctioned plan, original copy of it was not
delivered to me for want of bribe. Architect arrived and inspected
the house. It was complete in all respects but he refused to give
completion of complete house and told me very bluntly that only
partial certificate of one room, one bath, one kitchen would be
given. He charged me Rs 1000/- and did not give any receipt for
that, on demand he refused bluntly. This is crucial certificate
because after this your extension fee charges are stopped
otherwise you are threatened that fee will continue to be
charged. Owner has no other alternative but to apply for partial
24
Preface
completion certificate form supplied by architect but prepared

by PUDA so that no further extention fee is levied. It is here that
maximum bribe is bargained. After that partially occupation
certificate is issued by PUDA. That the last threat to owner of the
house orally comes that no sewerage connection of the house is
to be connected with main sewerage pipe otherwise Rs 15000/
- would be fined. Again it is 6" or 8" pipe connection. Size of pipe
is different for those who pay different bribe. God bless PUDA.
Your house is ready for you to live in. But in some cases even
partial house is not completed but certificate is issued for
consideration. There is another aspect after partial completion
certificate is issued by PUDA, owners start violation of construction
rules. PUDA keeps eyes closed for such violations. Another fee is
charged arbitrarily known as compounding fee. This is charged
even if house is completed as per sanction plan. In my case I was
charged with Rs 2662/- and if I do not pay this I am threatened
again of not issuing completion certificate and PUDA would
continue charging extension fee. In my case no road cutting was
involved yet I was charged Rs. 1950/- as road cutting charges
arbitrarily. My correspondence with PUDA is reproduced to
apprise readers of facts of my case. Local society leaders do not
want to interfere in corruption matters.
There has to be distinction of purchasers of plot who want
to built dwelling unit for themselves and of those purchasers
who want to sell it for profit. Central and State govts. must make
such provision in their policies. The present policies help those
who make profit out of purchases of plots and resell it at
exorbitant rates. According to study of Technical Committee
headed by Prof. Amitabh Kundra, New Delhi "62% of India's
new housing vacant." It reflects the Govt's skewed housing
policy. (HT 23.9.12) Any honest person living within sources
of his salary cannot afford to build a house at present rates of
plots sold by Govt. agencies. Therefore, taking bribe is justified
for employees on this ground alone! Sale/Purchase of plots,
properties is one of the biggest source of black money.
Preface
25
The Estate Officer,

PUDA,
Jalandhar city.
Sir,
Subject : Completion Certificate

Ref : Milkh Officer's letter dt. 11.4.2011
Milkh officer's aforesaid letter was received by me on 20.4.2011.
I have following points to make for your kind consideration and reply.
1. In terms of condition 12 of the allotment letter when it was
decided by the PUDA to charge extension fee and at what rate.
Pl supply copy of decision.
2. That besides the condition 12 is there any other rule/regulation/
law that authorized the PUDA to charge extension fee and at
what rate.
3. That the year 2006 the charges mentioned are Rs 9107/- and
for the year 2007 the charges are Rs 9600/- and for the year
2008 the charges are Rs 12000/-. Kindly inform me how and
why the charges are increased every year when the price of the
plot no. 245 remains the same.
4. That for the year 2010 charges shown are Rs 17637/-whereas
in the same year I have completed the construction of my house
on plot no 245 and applied for and informed the PUDA on
25.11.2010 and also submitted the application, duly signed by
the approved architect, on 23.12.2010.
This is without prejudice to my right to seek further information
on the subject matter.
With humble regards.
25.4.2011
Yours sincerely
(Baldev Singh)
245, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala-144601
Preface
26
The Estate Officer,
PUDA, 41, Ladowali Road,
Jalandhar City.
Subject : Charging of Extension fee on Plot 245, U.E. Kapurthala

Refer : Your letter no. 9760 dt. 16.9.2011
Your reply is not to the point and specific. However, I seek
further clarification/information on the following points :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the Punjab Government notification dt. 9.6.2010 No 1/

149/1986-4HGP/1759 is the first ever legal method of charging
extension fee under condition 12 of the allotment letter dt.
1.3.2001.
That no other notification is supplied to me. All other 8 papers
supplied are issued by administrative officer of the PUDA who
is not authorized to issue policy letters like that notification dt.
9.6.2010.
That the charges levied before 9.6.2010 are illegal, arbitrary,
therefore, liable to be refunded with interest.
That the cost of my plot is Rs 277500/- and extension fee should
be charged 2% or 2.5% as the case may be on the said amount.
However, I see increase in extension fee every year. It is also
arbitrary and illegal. Accordingly excess charged fee is refundable
with interest.
That there is no provision for charging extension fee for year
house is completed and you have charged me wrongly fee for
the year 2010 which is refundable.
19.10.2011
(Baldev Singh)
2245, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala-144 601
Preface
27
Jalandhar Development Authority

SCO no. 41, PUDA Complex, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar
To
Sh. Baldev Singh
245, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala.
No. EO-JDA-SO(R)-2011/11425
Dated: 13/12/2011
Subject : Charging of Extension Fees of Plot No. 245, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala.
Reference : your letter dt. 19.10.2011
With reference to your letter under reference Para wise reply
is given below:1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
As per condition no. 12 of allotment letter clearly shows that

the Extension fees can be changed from time to time as
determined by PUDA, so this notification has been issued by
Govt. of Punjab Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Photo copy of the notification No. 1/149/1986-4HGP/1759 dt.
9.6.2010 again sent, signed by the under-signed. It is also
intimated that the detail of Ext. fees has already been supplied
to you by this office vide letter No. 9760 dt. 16.9.2011.
Extension fees has been charged as per PUDA Instructions/
Policy.
The Extension fees can be charged as per Instructions/Policies
issued by PUDA from time to time.
The Extension fees for the year 2010 is charged, as the
permission to occupy was applied by you on 24.12.2010.
Estate Officer,
JDA, Jalandhar
28
Preface
WHAT IS ON RECORD OF CASE FILE

Civil, criminal and judicial administration is carried out on
very important dictum, what is on the record of case file.
Dealing person/authority first discusses orally and then places
on record or create record for decision or order in favour or
against. In civil administration it is officer and in criminal and
civil court cases it is advocate and police officer. In civil cases
officers discuss the case with political boss and according to
dictates, prepare record for or against and final decision is
arrived at. In criminal cases police, medical officers prepare
reports and then advocate gives legal shape to case and
accordingly upto Supreme Court case is decided. Those masters
in this business start efforts at police and medical level itself
to procure report/FIR according to their needs, therefore, there
is nothing impartial and truth in cases that goes upto the apex
Court, but the cases are decided what is on the record of the
case file. Rich and powerful get away with crime but poor get
punished. My colleague in bank and friend S. Ajit Singh Sekhon,
who after retirement is practicing advocate at Faridkot, told me,
he is taking criminal/murder cases and is charging high fee. In
courts it is all lies and lies (NIRA JHOOTH) that triumph.
SATYAMEV JAYTE is our national slogan. There is proverb in
Punjabi, SACHE PHANSI CHARDE DEKHE JHOOTHE MAUJ
URAN (honest and truthful get hanged but corrupt and liars
enjoy in life). In civil cases it is more like mathematics. Cases
are decided on facts and law placed on record. But in my case
even that privilege was denied. Arbitrary and biased orders
were passed misusing powers and immunity given under the
Constitution of India. It also amounted to physical harasment
and metal agony. In a recently reported case, it came to the
notice of SC that mercy petition of Mahindera Nath Das was
favourably ordered on September 30, 2005 by the then
President but this fact was not put up before his successor
President who rejected the mercy petition in 2011." (Times of
India, 4.5.2013) It was same Justice G.S. Singhvi who had given
relief to Mahindra Nath Das and had earlier rejected DPS
Preface
29
Bhullar's appeal not following a five Judges Bench order. "The

right to seek commutation of a death sentence on the grounds
of inordinate delay in disposing mercy petitions has been
granted by the Supreme Court's five-judge Constitution Bench
in Triveniben vs State of Gurjarat in 1989. That Bench did not
deny this right to those convicted of terrorism-related offences.
Therefore, observers wonder how the two-judge Bench could
overrule a binding decision, rendered by a five-judge Bench, and
disentitle a category of prisoners, convicted under antiterrorism laws, to their constitutional right to seek commutation
of their sentences." ('Mercy Denied', V. Venkataran, Frontline,
May 17, 2013) A three judges bench of SC said on 21st January,
2014 that, "Rejection of Bhullar's plea wrong." (Tribune,
January 22, 2014). At times individual rule can be more
powerful than rule of law. I was left to pray to God for justice.
When and what God decides no body knows, very few realize
it. Some say there is no God; either tolerate injustice or fight
it out. In most of the cases, as history teaches and tells us,
coming generations suffer. Raja Jaichand invited Mohamed
Gauri against his rival Prithviraj Chauhan, the starting point of
our slavery. Buddhists and their Maths were destroyed by Hindu
rulers. Muslims destroyed Hindu temples. Generations suffer
but we do not learn. In recent times we attacked Harimandar
and destroyed Akal Takht and demolished 500 years old Babri
Masjid, inviting retaliation from Sikh and Muslim youths,
respectively. Destruction of religious places could be understood
when human was not so civilised, democratic, secular but
during these civilised and secular days it is totally vindictive.
WOLF AND LAMB STORY

The cases of petitioner-in-person are listed in the end of
daily cause list in Supreme Court. My case alongwith others cases
was listed at Sl. No. 66 of Court No 11 comprising of Justices G.S.
Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly. This Bench has been hearing most
talked about case of 2G Spectrum involving top guns of the UPA
30
Preface
Government and private sector big players. When I learnt that

my case is listed before this Bench I was happy for two reasons.
First, I had appeared before Justice G.S. Singhvi when he was at
Chandigarh in High Court of Punjab and Haryana. He had
admitted my CWP exposing scam of illegal promotions in Bank,
my employer, had issued notices to executives involved in it. I
also used to sit in his court to learn how the cases are argued by
advocates. The other Judge who inspired me was Justice
Jawahar Lal Gupta, who retired as Chief Justice of Kerala High
Court. Occasionally I used to sit in other courts also for short
while including that of Justice J.S. Khehar. As an Senior advocate
he was known as Jagdish Singh. When he became Judge he
added Khehar with his name. As per newspaper reports he will
be first Sikh CJI. According to his own judgement he is Patit
(degraded) Sikh. Second reason was that this Bench was passing
harsh orders against persons involved in the scam of 2G spectrum
and hoped relief in my case also. I was ready for my turn and
looking at the Hon'ble Judges when my case was called. I saw
Justice G.S. Singhvi telling something in low voice to Justice A.K.
Ganguly. His face had become stern and neck stiff and straight.
It struck my mind instantly that something bad is going to
happen. Not-withstanding that, I started to argue my case, "My
Lord, the respondent had decided three years moratorium for
construction on plots because the infrastructure was not ready
and zoning plan not approved for possession and construction of
houses. That the National Consumer Commission dismissed my
petition on the ground that the petitioner had misunderstood the
meaning of word 'moratorium' by making wrong interpretation.
That the meaning of the word in Oxford Dictionary is, "a
temporary prohibition of an activity" given at page no. 9 of the
paper book." That the Hon'ble Judges did not bother to open
paper book and see/read what I am arguing about. That it is
customary for judges to look at the page and read what the
petitioner is arguing. Instead I was cut short and asked by Justice
G.S. Singhvi to read condition 11 of the allotment letter, being
an educated person, and without further hearing pre-decided
Preface
31
order was dictated. That the President appoints Judges to hear

and read what petitioners/litigants say and then decide. If they
don't, that is end of justice in any part of the world. Some judges
become egoistic about their post and position. They forget there
is Lord (God) above them.
That the para 2(b) of Questions of Law in paper book
reads,
"whether the condition No 11 of the allotment letter dt.
1.3.2011 had not become non-operative by the own fact
of the respondent after issuing letter dt. 5.10.04 and
granting 3 years of moratorium for construction on the
plot w.e.f 12.6.02 to 11.6.05 and shifted its operative
period of construction w.e.f. 12.6.05 to 11.6.08 and the
petitioner was entitled to commence and complete the
construction within 3 years after 12.6.05 ?"
That read with para 5 of the RP no. 2217 of 2010 which
was part of the SLP (C)'s paper book at page No. 54,
5. "That the State Commission has erred in ignoring the
fact that after declaring moratorium for three years
from 12.6.02 conditions of allotment letter No 11 and
12 become non-operational by the own act of the
respondent, therefore, allowing appeal on this ground
is erroneous and wrong. That the delay in sanction of
zoning plan was due to the fact that infrastructure of
roads, sewerage, water pipes were not laid nor electric
polls were erected, therefore, not fit to give demarcation
and possession of plots. No one could build a house
under such circumstances. That the respondent was not
in position to give demarcation and possession of plots."
That the issue/arguments were never ever raised by the
respondent either in writing or orally in entire case at any stage
about conditions 11 and 12 because, "for the purpose of
construction in the residential plots may be taken wef. 12.6.02
the date on which the zoning of this area approved the
development works completed" and about the meaning of word
32
Preface
'MORATORIUM'. It was own creation of State and National

Consumer Commissions and not based on written or oral
arguments of the respondent, not heard of in the British and
the Indian jurisprudence. And finally the Hon'ble Supreme
Court put approval stamp on these judgements and dismissed
my SLP. It reminded me of short story of WOLF AND LAMB
taught in school days. When wolf wanted to eat lamb, all
arguments of lamb were thrown to winds and wolf relished
eating lamb. Amongst animals it is a jungle law, survival of the
fittest. But amongst human beings there is civilized society, after
social contract theory came into existence. (Hobbs, Lock
Russoue) There is civil law, there is criminal law. Aristotle, the
Greek philosopher, said, "at his best, man is the noblest of all
animals, separated from law and justice he is the worst". In this
case who is the worst?
What the respondent PUDA had to say before Distt. Forum
and in first appeal before the State Consumer Commission
Chandigarh are reproduced in paper book and at the end of this
book as appendix-II, p. 40. Learned reader will notice that
nowhere these points of conditions 11 and 12 and meaning of
moratorium were raised by the respondent yet these were
grounds of dismissals of my petitions by Hon'ble State, National
Commissions and Supreme Court. It was like repeated rape of
justice. In my views upto the level of National Commission,
influence of the respondent could have bearing on the outcome
of judgements but at the Supreme Court level it was totally
unexpected but very dangerous for the future of Justice system,
and the future of country. I respect law and judiciary but
individuals can go wrong and pass wrong orders/judgements.
Some judges are accused of abuse of office to pass wrong orders.
They must be exposed, come what may. They violate oath of
office and the Constitution.
In my letter to Hindustan Times (9.8.2011) I expressed my
views thus;
Preface
33
A judge not blindfolded

I agree with Justice AK Ganguly's views as reported in
"Apex Court judge says PM should come under Lokpal"
(Aug 6), but he should have said that for judges too, as
they also hold public offices. When the Constitution was
framed, it was believed judges could be given complete
independence, but time has proved they are not infallible.
(Baldev Singh, via email)
Eminent jurist Fali S. Nariman said,

"with a few exceptions, the higher judiciary tends to
stick together when anyone speaks of wrongdoings
amongst them, even though they themselves know
the truth"
(India Today, August 29, 2011).
There is English proverb, "Birds of same feather fly

together". In Punjabi it is said cor cor mosyry BweI (CHOR CHOR
MOSSARE BHAI All thieves are first cousins). Supreme court's
full Bench decision (3 judges), presided by Justice Dalveer
Bhandari, says,
".....most of the cases before the Consumer Forums are
small cases of relatively poor people where legal
intricacies are not involved and great legal skills are not
required".
That non-lawyer can represent, appear and argue cases filed
under the Consumer Protection Act-1986. (Hindustan Times
1.9.2011). That American, English and Australian laws permit
such practices.
Though the world is one and same for all but life is not
same for every individual. It is excellent, good, bad and ugly
for each and every individual according to his/her circumstances.
Injustice is most dangerous misconduct of any judge
capable of destroying civil society and country inviting miseries
for future generations.
I am not the only person who feels the pinch of injustice.
Read this letter published in Hindustan Times (1.3.2013):
34
Preface
Judging the Judge

If accountability is fixed on judges for deciding cases
contrary to the material evidence by misreading,
misapplying, misrepresenting or over sighting record
and due action is taken, it will work like miracle to
reduce the delay in getting justice and eradicate
corruption from judiciary. Judges will be bound to
decide matters only on merit. A senior Jurist filed a
sealed affidavit in the apex court that out of 18 chief
justices of India, 8 were corrupt definitely and the
integrity of two was not clear. Yet, litigants can appeal
against only judgement and not the judge.
(Jai Bhagwan Gupta, Chandigarh)
Another reader writes in Hindustan Times (20.3.13):
Judges above law?

The conduct of the judiciary has escaped examination
all these years. Judges misuse their immunity, a serious
setback to the independence and credibility of judiciary.
Can judges be permitted to do anything in the guise of
the 'independence of judiciary'?
(Preet Simar Johal, Jalandhar)
Thinking of Indian has been blurred by superstitions,

irrational division of mankind into thousands of castes and sub
castes and useless rituals in daily life. Retd. Judge of Supreme
Court and Chairman of PCI Markandey Katzu says 90% of
Indians are fools/idiots. He had not defined his own category !
One Katzu from Allahabad was Cabinent Minister in Nehru's
Govt. May be he is from same family.
A person who had spent lots of money and life time on
litigation said out of frustration, "it is a business between
advocates and judges and not justice in most of the cases, I have
seen it with my own eyes and experience."
I have first-hand information that a private hospital owner
wanted to get his premises vacated from medicine shop owner.
Preface
35
Judge hearing the case told advocate for petitioner to get

money for favourable order. And it was paid and premises got
vacated.
For winning any case what is most important: advocate,
judge or the law? Actually it should be law because any case
has to be decided in accordance with law but in practice, in most
of the cases, it is advocate, money and luck. If in any given crime
maximum punishment is ten years but actually one may get only
five years, minimum prescribed in law then there is possibility
of element of influence. In Ruchika molestation case maximum
punishment in law was not awarded to DGP Rathore, Rathore's
wife is praticing High Court advocate. Here comes the role of
money and advocate. There is always cordial relationship
between judges and advocates, in legal terminology, Bar and
Bench. There is nothing wrong in it. Advocates always address
judges as 'My Lord' and bow before them. Some even to the
extent of MATHA TEKANA. And judges always refer to
advocates as 'Learned' Mr. so and so (name of the advocate in
judgement). Advocates also protest, go on strike; write against
judges to High Court or Supreme Court or the President, the
P.M., the Law Minister etc. After some time there is amicable
settlement. They are most educated, civilized class of people.
But every human is likely to err and they err. No country can
run without judges and advocates. Most important phrase is,
"in accordance with law". But actually it is the will and whim
of the judge in some cases.
In Indian sub-continent any institution or/and any
individual can be influenced. Merit is casualty. British trained
honest people have died. Now the local stuff totally trained in
SWARAJ are in full force. Law is supreme in books only but in
practice judges are supreme. Punjabi proverb says, RAB NERE
YA GHASUN. (God is powerful or fist of mighty?). Many
thousands sacrificed their life for the freedom of this country.
Now many will have to sacrifice to preserve it. Some may call
it second freedom movement otherwise another form of slavery
will set in. Freedom is not one generation affair. Every
36
Preface
generation has to struggle for it, especially for us, who have
attained freedom after centuries of slavery.
While I was arguing, Justice G.S. Singhvi interrupted me
and dictated his pre-decided order. It was in low voice to his
reader. I could hear word 'dismissed'. It is not advisable for
petitioner-in-person to take on with judges like learned
advocates could do it. Theirs is, after all, family affair. All black
kotwalas. I could have invited contempt or costs like I was
imposed by Justice J.S. Khehar in High Court. I wanted to say
'Thanks Sir' but could utter only 'thanks' and left the court room.
It is worth mentioning here that Justice G.S. Singhvi alongwith
other sitting 25 Judges of the High Court at Chandigarh had
gone on mass leave on April 19, 2004 against their Chief Justice
B.K. Roy. At that time our President was non- politician
intellectual person with ethical and moral values of very high
caliber. Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who had taken serious note of
it. But our President and Prime Minister are powerless before
High and Supreme Court judges, according to law. Only
Parliament has power to impeach any one of them but again
that has never happened so far. When I compare Justice Altamas
Kabir with Justice G.S. Singhvi I find Justice Kabir to be more
frank and truthful (He had told me in open court that I have
been writing against Judges, therefore, no intervention,
dismissed. See my book Justice Disgraced), but Justice Singhvi
concealed his inner feelings. It is generally believed that our first
freedom fighter Prime Minister was honest and truthful but if
need be could be most cunning and clever (M.O. Mathai, his
Spl Asst., in his book titled Reminiscences of the Nehru Age).
Once I was sitting in the court of Justice J S Khehar when he
was at Chandigarh. He was advising young advocate, who had
a case before him, that interpretation of law is very tricky
matter. In next court you may have different interpretation of
same law. Young advocate and others sitting in the court were
learning the tricks of profession. Earlier this profession was
practised by people like Mohandas Karam Chand Gandhi, Moti
Lal, Mohd. Ali Jinnah, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Bhim Rao Ambedkar
Preface
37
and others. They had professional ethics before them but now
the virtues of ethics, truth, honesty and justice are rarest of the
rare commodity in Indian sub-continent.
The order of 4.7.2011 passed by Justice G.S. Singhvi is
jugglery of words. It no where says that there is no merit in the
Petition but it is still dismissed. Unless in an order, it is not
specifically stated that there is no merit in petition it is deemed
that the merits of the case have not been considered by Hon'ble
Judge. Why merits are not considered? If merits are not
considered then case is disposed of and not dismissed but in
this case neither case is considered on merits nor it is disposed
of. Although Justice A.K. Ganguly is signatory to this order but
it was Justice G.S. Singhvi's order.
To do justice is highest virtue any judge can claim and be
proud of it. But Indian history proves they are in the habit of
doing injustice. Their centuries old social, religious structure
based on caste-system itself is based on inequality, injustice
(Manu Simriti). After them Mughal/Muslim rulers also did the
same things. The decision/judgement was according to one's
caste/religion. In FIRs were and are mentioned to which caste/
religion litigant belongs to. Sikh Gurus had ushered in a social
and religious revolution but they have relapsed into original
system and practice it in daily life. They don't do justice to poor,
needy and downtrodden in Punjab.
Indians are expert in making a hero out of zero and or
making a hero into zero. False praises, false propaganda for or
against proves they are not of balanced mind, but cunning and
cleaver. Any intellectual mind would not act in such a manner.
We are unable to recognise and distinguish who is cunning,
cleaver and who is intellectual. Indian had produced such a
mind centuries ago. His name was Chankiya Kautalya his
modern mind is Machievelli, author of The Prince. Our first
prime minister was very fond of him and named Diplomatic
enclave in Delhi after him. It is known as Chankiyapuri. Before
him Manu, the law giver, had ruled the Indian mind. It was
according to him, Law was enforced and justice dispensed.
38
Preface
I have appeared and argued before over 30 judges of High

and Supreme Courts but none had cut short me while I was
arguing my case. They did not interrupt me while I was arguing
my case/point. They questioned me after I had completed my
argument. In this case I was cut short and order already decided
was dictated to steno/reader. I could understand the compultion.
He was defending the bastion, I was exposing, out of my
experiences and in the interest of the litigants, public and the
country as a whole. To stand by truth is highest form of struggle
in life.
'Jatha Raja Tatha Parja' is our ancient dictum. M.O. Mathai
writes in his book that Jawahar Lal Nehru had a son from a
Sadhavi without marriage after becoming Prime Minister of
India. Rajiv Dixit said his wife had died in 1936. Why he could
not marry again? Did not he sex with any women after that?
He died of sex related disease. M.K. Gandhi asked girls to sleep
naked with him to test his sex power (brahmchariya avastha).
There is court beyond Supreme Court. The court of people
and above all there is court of God. The will of God first. These
perishable human beings think themselves as more powerful
when they misuse their authority. They are ignorant, arrogant
and arbitrarion. Ignorance is bliss but for fools. Socrates died
a dissatisfied man. He was poisoned to death by the rulers of
the day because he was speaking Truth and exposing the rulers.
Since then many have been executed by cruel rulers. It will
continue. It is the game of God. Guru Nanak calls it MAYAJAL.
I have appended my SLP and the order of 4.7.2011 so that
entire facts are available to reader. Poet of the East Alama Iqbal
is oftenly quoted for his couplet SARE JAHAN SE ACHHA
HINDUSTAN HAMARA but very few know or very few quote his
another couplet which says,
Mudaten ho gayi hain ranjo gam sehte hue,
Ab sharam ati hai isse watan kehte hue.
12.5.2012
Baldev Singh
Repeated Rape of Justice
39
Appendix-I
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2217 OF 2010
(Against the order dated 19.4.10 in Appeal No. 1589/07 of the
State Commission, Chandigarh)
Baldev Singh.............Petitioner(s)
Vs
P.U.D.A. .............. Respondent(s)
BEFORE :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
For the Petitioner(s)
For the Respondent(s)
: In person
: Mrs. Nidhi Tewari, Adv.
For Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, Adv.
Dated, the 16th day of November, 2010

ORDER
Ms. Tewari seeks three weeks further time for filing response
which is opposed strongly by the petitioner. Subject to payment of
Rs 2500/- by the respondent to the petitioner, case is adjourned to
12.01.2011 for argument. Response be filed in the meantime by the
respondent.
Sd/(K.S. Gupta)
Presiding Member
Sd/(S.K. Naik)
Member
40
Appendix-II
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO 13719 OF 2011
WITH
PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
(Arising out of the final judgment and order dated 17.1.2011 passed
by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2217 of 2010)
Baldev Singh.........................Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Urban & Development Authority...................Respondent
WITH
I.A. No./2011 APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND
ARGUE THE MATTER IN PERSON
PAPER - BOOK
(For Index Kindly see Inside)
BALDEV SINGH
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
245, URBAN ESTATE, KAPURTHALA-144601, PUNJAB
MOBILE NO. 09815120919
41

Baldev Singh Vs. PUDA, Jalandhar (Pb.)
INDEX
Sl.
Particulars of Documents
Date
Page
No.
1. Office Note on Limitation
2. Listing Performa
19.4.11
A1 A2 A3
3. Synopsis with list of dates
8.4.11
B to F
4. Impugned judgement and order

Dt. 17.1.11 in R.P. No. 2217/10
passed by National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission,
New Delhi
17.1.11
1 to 3
5. S.L.P (civil) with affidavit
19.4.11
4 to 17
6. ANNEXURE P-1 (letter of allotment of

plot 245, U/E)
1.3.01
18 to 24
7. ANNEXURE P-2 (PUDA policy Br.

declares 3 years moratorium)
5.10.04
25
8. ANNEXURE P-3 (Petitioner appl

for extension time)
12.4.05
26
9. ANNEXURE P-4 (Petitioner writes to

PUDA for refund of excess 15%
interest charged)
17.4.06
27
10. ANNEXURE P-5 (Petitioner applies for

sanction of building plan)
22.7.06
28
11. ANNEXURE P-6 (Building plan

returned by PUDA)
9.8.06
29
12. ANNEXURE P-7 (PUDA refers

Rs 27249/- on a/c of plot No. 245,
No details given)
29.8.06
30
13. ANNEXURE P-8 (Petitioner applies

for building plan again on prescribed
form and fee of Rs 5673/-)
22.9.06
31
42
14. ANNEXURE P-9 (Complaint No.

169/07 filed before Ld. Distt. Forum,
Jalandhar)
13.4.07
32 to 34
15. ANNEXURE P-10 (PUDA's letter

for possession and demarcation)
3.8.07
35
16. ANNEXURE P-11 (Evidence of the

respondent by way of affidavit)
21.8.07
36 to 41
17. ANNEXURE P-12 (Complaint No.

169/07 allowed on merits by Ld.
Distt. Forum)
18.9.07
42 to 44
18. ANNEXURE P-13 (PunjabSCRDC,

Chandigarh allowed appeal No.
1589/07 and set aside the order
Dt. 18.9.07)
19.4.10
45 to 50
19. ANNEXURE P-14 (Petitioner filed

R.P. No. 2217/10 before National
CRDC, New Delhi against the order
dt. 19.4.10 in appeal No 1589/07)
2.6.10
51 to 58
20. Application to appear and argue inPerson.
19.4.11
59 & 60
21. Memo of appearance
61
Place : New Delhi

Date : April 19, 2011
Petitioner-in-person
Note : Page numbers are of paper book and not of this book.
43
-A-

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO 13719 OF 2011
Baldev Singh.......................Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Urban & Development Authority..................Respondent
OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION
1.
2.
3.
The petition is with time.

The petition is barred by time and there is delay of days in filing
the same against order dated............and Application for
Condonation of delay of..................days has been filed.
There is delay of days in refilling the petition and petition for
condonation of...................days in refilling has been filed.
DATED: 19.4.2011
BRANCH OFFICER
44
- A1 -
LISTING PROFORMA
1.
2.
Nature of the matter: Civil

(a) Name(s) of Petitioner(s) Appellant(s): Baldev Singh
(b) e-mail ID: N/A
3. (a) Name(s) of Respondent(s) PUDA
(b) e-mail ID: N/A
4. Number of the case: SLP (Civil) No.
of 2011
5. (a) Advocates for Petitioner(s): Petitioner-in-Person
(b) e-mail ID: N/A
6. (a) Advocate for Respondent(s): N/A
(b) e-mail ID: N/A
7. Section dealing with the matter: XVII
8. Date of Impugned Order/Judgement: 17.1.2011
8A. Name of Hon'ble Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Jain, Presiding
Member and Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Naik, Member
8B. In Land Acquisition Matters :- N/A
i) Notification/Govt. Order No. (u/s 4, 6)
Dated.............issued by Centre/State: N/A
ii) Exact purpose of acquisition and village involved:
8C. In civil Matters:- N/A
i) Suit No. name of Lower Court: N/A
Date of Judgement:
8D. In Writ Petitions :
"Catchword" of other similar matters: N/A
8E. In case of Motor Vehicle Matters:8F. In Service Matters:
i) Relevant Service Rule, if any: N/A
ii) G.O./Circular/Notification, if applicable or in question :N/A
8G. In Labour Industrial Disputes Matters:i) I.D. Reference/Award No. applicable:
9. Nature of Urgency: Prayer for Interim Relief
10. In case it is a Tax Matter: N/A
Tax amount involved in the matter: N/A
Whether a reference statement of the case was called for rejected:
N/A
45
- A2 (c) whether similar tax matters of same parties filed earlier (may be
for earlier/other Assessment Year): N/A
(d) Exemption Notification/Circular No.
11. Valuation of the matter: N/A
12. Classification of the matter: N/A
(Please fill up the number and name of relevant category with
sub category as per the list circulated):
No. of Sub-category with full name: 38
No. of Sub-category with full name: Matter relating to Consumer
Protection.
13. Title of the Act involved (Central/State): Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
14. (a) Sub Classification (Indicate Section/Article of the statue): N/A
(b) Sub-section involved: N/A
(c) Title of the Rules involved: N/A
(d) Sub-Classification (Indicate Rule/Sub-Rule of the statue) : N/A
15. Point of law and question of law raised in the case: Whether the
condition No. 12 of allotment letter dt. 1.3.2001 is not binding
on the respondent to declare and inform the petitioner that when
it was decided to levy the extension charges/fee and how much
and at what rate?
16. Whether matter is not to be listed before any Hon'ble Judge?
Mention the name of the Hon'ble Judge: N/A
17. Particulars of identical/similar case or cases, if any,
a) Pending cases: N/A
b) Decided cases with citation: N/A
17A. Was S.L.P./Appeal/Writ filed against same impugned judgement/
order earlier? If yes, particulars:
18. Whether the Petition is against interlocutory/final order/decree
in the case: Final Order
19. If it is a fresh matter please state the name of the High court and
the coram in the impugned judgement/order ? National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
20. If the matter was already listed in this Court: N/A
i) When was it listed ? N/A
ii) What was the Coram ? N/A
iii) What was the direction of the Court ? N/A
21. Whether a date has already been fixed either by Court on being
46
- A3 mentioned, for hearing of the matter ? If so please indicate the

date fixed ? N/A
22. Is there a caveator ? If so, whether a notice has been issued to
him ? N/A
23. Whether date entered in the computer ? N/A
24. If it is a criminal matter, please state: N/A
i) Whether accused has surrendered: N/A
ii) Nature of offence, i.e. convicted i.e. under section with Act:
N/A
iii) Sentence awarded: N/A
iv) Sentence already undergone by the accused: N/A
24.(e) i) FIR/RC/etc
Date of Registration of FIR etc: N/A
Crime No. N/A
Name and Place of the Police Station: N/A
ii) Name and Place of Trial Court: N/A
Case No. in Trial Court and Date of Judgement:
iii) Name and Place of 1st Appellate Court: Punjab State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Case No. in 1st Appellate Court and date of judgement:
Appeal No. 1589 of 2007 Dt. 19.4.2010.
Date: 19/4/2011
BALDEV SINGH
47
-B-
BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE

That the petitioner is preferring the present Special Leave
Petition (Civil) against the final order/judgement dated 17th January,
2011 by the Division Member Bench of Hon'ble National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the matter of Revision
Petition no. 2217 of 2010 titled Baldev Singh versus PUDA wherein
the Bench has erroneously and wrongly interpreted the meaning of
word "moratorium", has erred and ignored the averment of the
petitioner as to charging of 15% interest on housing instalments was
arbitrary and illegal, erred in ignoring the arguments of the petitioner
that sanctioned plan of the plot No. 245, Urban Estate, Kapurthala
is not delivered to the petitioner, therefore, possession and construction
could not be taken up, has erred and ignored the averment that three
years moratorium period was not informed to the petitioner, has erred
and ignored that no demand notice was ever issued to the petitioner
for the recovery of extension fee that the extension fee was deducted
from refundable amount without any information/details given to the
petitioner. That the respondent has erred in law and in mathematical
calculation of three years moratorium period w.e.f. 12.6.2002.
That the petitioner was allotted a 150 sq. yds plot in Urban
Estate, Kapurthala through draw of lots in the year 2000 and issued
a allotment letter dt. 1.3.2001. That 15% interest was charged on
instalments to be deposited by the petitioner and conditions 11 and
12 were imposed arbitrarily for taking possession and construction of
the plot. That the infrastructure like sewerage, water supply, roads,
electric supply were not provided in the proposed PUDA colony,
Kapurthala.
That the Policy Branch, Mohali of the respondent issued a letter
dt. 5.10.04 wherein it was stated that
"it has been decided that 3 years moratorium period for the
purpose of construction in the residential plots may be taken
w.e.f. 12.6.02 the date on which the zoning of this area
approved and development works completed".
That this important decision was not informed to the petitioner.
That the petitioner applied for extension of construction period
on the plot No 245 on 12.4.05. No demand notice for extension fee
48
-Cwas ever sent to the petitioner by the respondent. Meanwhile, the

petitioner had deposited complete instalments with 15% and got "No
Due Certificate" dt. 1.12.04 from the respondent. Petitioner applied
for building plan for construction of house on plot No 245 on 22.7.06
first time and applied again on 22.9.06 but no sanction was received
by me. That the petitioner received a refund of Rs 27249/- in response
to his representation dt 17.4.06 but no details were given by the
respondent.
That after sending REGD reminders dated 10.11.06 and 10.1.07
and getting no reply the petitioner filed complaint/petition. Before
Hon'ble Distt. Forum, Jalandhar on following grounds :
"1. Refund of balance amount with 15% interest on due
amount from due date on instalments of plot No. 245, Urban
Estate, Kapurthala and
2. Sanction of building plan on plot No. 245 submitted on
22.9.06 with Bank Draft for Rs 5673/-"
That the Complaint No. 169/07 was allowed on merits by
Hon'ble Distt. Forum on 18.9.07. That the respondent filed First
Appeal in Hon'ble State C.D.R. Commission, Pb., Chandigarh, No.
1589/07 which was decided on 19.4.10. It set aside the order passed
by the Distt. Forum. Therefore, the petitioner filed an Revision Petition
No. 2217/10 in Hon'ble National C.D.R. Commission, New Delhi. That
the National Commission passed the following order on 12.7.2010:"Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person. According
to him, when the respondent authority itself granted a
moratorium for the construction of a house for a period
of 3 years from 12.6.2002 to 11.6.2005, there was no
question of the authorities charging extension fee for the
year 2005 and 2006. By virtue of the moratorium, the
petitioner complainant was entitled to commence the
construction within 3 years after 12.6.2005.
The point raised by the petitioner needs consideration.
Issue notice to the respondent returnable on 21.9.2010.
Meanwhile, operation of the impugned order is stayed."
That the respondent did not file any reply/written statement to
the notice issued by the NCDRC, New Delhi. That the final arguments
49
-Dtook place on 12.1.2011 and the final judgement and order passed
on 17.1.2011 and the copy of the order was delivered to the petitioner
by REGD. post on 9.2.2011. That it dismissed the R.P.No. 2217/2010
on the ground that the petitioner misunderstood the meaning of the
word 'moratorium', quoting Oxford Dictionary. That the Hon'ble
National Commission, New Delhi has erred and made own wrong
interpretation of the word moratorium. Hence, this S.L.P (Civil) before
this Hon'ble Court.
50
-E-
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

Date
Particulars
Page
1.3.2001
Letter of allotment of Plot No. 245,

Urban Estate, ANNEXURE P-1
18 to 24
PUDA policy Br. Declares 3 years

Moratorium, ANNEXURE P-2
25
5.10.04
1.12.04
PUDA issued 'No Due Certificate'
12.4.05
Petitioner applies for Extension time.

ANNEXURE P-3
26
Petitioner writes to PUDA for refund of

excess 15% interest charged.
ANNEXURE P-4
27
17.4.06
26.6.06
Petitioner sends reminder to PUDA
22.7.06
Petitioner applies for sanction of building

plan. ANNEXURE P-5
28
9.8.06
Building plan returned by PUDA

ANNEXURE P-6.
29
29.8.06
PUDA refunds 27249/- on a/c of plot

No. 245. No details given. ANNEXURE P-7
30
22.9.06
Petitioner applies for building plan again on

prescribed form and fee of Rs. 5673/ANNEXURE P-8
31
10.11.06
Petitioner sends regd. reminder for sanction

of building plan.
10.1.07
Petitioner sends another reminder and also

reminds of violation of CPA-06.
13.4.07
Complaint No. 169/7 filed before Ld. Distt.

Forum, Jalandhar. ANNEXURE P-9
12.6.07
Reply to notice filed by the Respondent.
5.7.07
Replication by way of affidavit filed by the

petitioner u/s 151 of CPC.
3.8.07
PUDA's letter for possession and demarcation

ANNEXURE P-10
32 to 34
35
51
-F21.8.07
Evidence of respondent by way of affidavit.

ANNEXURE P-11
36 to 41
18.9.07
Complaint No. 169/07 allowed on merits

by Ld. Distt. Forum. ANNEXURE P-12
42 to 44
7.12.07
PUDA filed First Appeal No. 1589/07

before Punjab SCRDS, Chandigarh.
10.3.08
Petitioner (Respondent) in Appeal No

1589/07 filed written statement u/s
151 of the CPC.
19.4.10
Punjab SCRDC, Chandigarh allowed appeal

No. 1589/07 and set aside the order
dt. 18.9.07 ANNEXURE P-13
45 to 50
2.6.10
Petitioner filed R.P.No. 2217/10 before

National CDRC, New Delhi against the
order Dt. 19.4.10 in Appeal No. 1589/07.
ANNEXURE P-14
51 to 58
12.7.10
After hearing notice issued to the

respondent and the impugned order
dt. 19.4.10 in Appeal No. 1589/07
was stayed.
12.1.11
Respondent did not file any reply to the

notice. Final arguments took place.
Order reserved.
17.1.11
That the Revision Petitioner No. 2217/10

was dismissed on the ground of
wrong interpretation of word 'moratorium'.
19.4.11
Hence, this special Leave petition (Civil)

before this Hon'ble Court.
Note : Page numbers are of paper book and not of this book.
52
-1-
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2217 OF 2010
[Against the order dated 19-4-2010 in Appeal No. 1589/2007 of the
Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh]
Baldev Singh, 853, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala-144 601.........................Petitioner
VERSUS
Punjab Urban & Development Authority (PUDA),
Through Estate Officer,
SCO 41, Ladowali road,
Jalandhar City (Punjab)..................Respondent
Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
Appearance:
For the Petitioner
For the Respondent
:
:
In-Person
Ms. Nidhi Tiwari, Advocate.
Pronounced on : 17th of January, 2011

ORDER
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
Petitioner/complainant had made two allegations against the
respondent, Punjab Urban & Development Authority (PUDA) before
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (the
District Forum for short). His first charge was that for a plot allotted
to him in Kapurthala Urban Estate during 2001 even though he had
paid the instalment according to the schedule and the respondent/
opposite party/PUDA had declared one year moratorium on deposit
of instalments, he has been wrongly charged 15% interest on the
instalments. His second grouse was that the respondent/opposite
party/PUDA has imposed extension fee for non-construction for the
53
-2years 2005-2006 despite the fact that the respondent/opposite party/

PUDA itself vide their circular dated 5th of October, 2004 had granted
a moratorium for a period of three years for the purpose of
construction w.e.f 12th of June, 2002 the date on which the zoning
of this area was approved.
When the complaint was pending before the District Forum, the
respondent/opposite party/PUDA agreed to refund the excess amount
recovered from the complainant on the instalments paid by him but
adjusted an amount of Rs. 13,539/- from out of the excess amount
as extension fee for the years 2005 and 2006. The District Forum,
therefore, considered as to whether the respondent/opposite party/
PUDA was entitled to levy any extension fee non-construction for the
years 2005 and 2006 and vide their order dated 18th of September,
2007 allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/opposite
party/PUDA not to charge any extension fee till demarcation is
completed and possession is given to the complainant. It also directed
the respondent/opposite party to pay Rs. 13,539/- to the complainant
with 9% interest from 24th of April, 2006 to till payment. It further
awarded a cost of Rs. 3,000/-.
The order of the District Forum was challenged before the
Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressed Commission, (the State
Commission for short), who vide the impugned order has set aside
the order of the District Forum; thereby dismissing the complaint.
This has necessitated the complainant to file this revision petition
before us seeking setting aside of the order passed by the State
Commission.
The short point for consideration is as to whether on the face
of the policy decision taken by the respondent/opposite party/PUDA
vide their circular dated 5th of October, 2004 specifically on the
subject of charge of extension fee for residential plots in Kapurthala
Urban Estate, wherein it was decided to grant three years
moratorium period for the purpose of construction w.e.f. 12th of
June, 2002; they could charge the extension fee for non-construction
for the years 2005 and 2006. It appears that the petitioner/
complainant has misunderstood the meaning of moratorium. The
meaning of the word 'moratorium' as per Oxford English Dictionary
is "a legal authorization to debtors to postpone payment". No doubt
the respondent/opposite party/PUDA had provided a moratorium
54
-3period of three years w.e.f. 12th of June, 2002. In this case the
decision of the respondent/opposite party/PUDA can only be
interpreted to mean that allottees were not required to pay extension
fee/charge, if they were liable to pay, during the period 12th of June,
2002 to 11th June, 2005. The moratorium did not mean waiver of
the extension fee. It is not disputed that the petitioner/complainant
though was allotted the plot had initiated action for construction of
the house on 22nd of June, 2006 by submitting the building plan for
approval. Thus, the petitioner/complainant has to be held to have not
complied with the terms and condition of the allotment and the
respondent/opposite party/PUDA has rightly levied the extension fee.
Thus, we do not find any illegality, irregularly or jurisdictional
error in the order passed by the State Commission and the revision
petition, accordingly, is dismissed with no order as to cost.
(R.C. JAIN, J.)

PRESIDING MEMBER
(S.K. NAIK)
MEMBER
Mukesh
True copy
Petitioner
55
-4-

ORDER XVI RULE 4 (1) (A)
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13719 of 2011
(Against the judgement and final order dt. 17.1.2011 passed by
Hon'ble Division Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2217/
2010)
WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
BETWEEN
Position of parties in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission.
Baldev Singh,
245, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala 144 601
Petitioner
Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority,
Through Estate Officer,
41, Ladowali Road,
Jalandhar (Pb.)
Respondent
Respondent
56
- 5-6 To
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India
And His Companion Judges of the
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE ABOVE NAMED PETITIONER
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The present Special Leave Petition (Civil) is being preferred
by the petitioner herein against the impugned final judgement and
order dt. 17.1.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Division Member Bench of
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in
Revision Petition No 2217 of 2010 whereby the Hon'ble National
Consumer Commission has erroneously and wrongly dismissed the
petition by making wrong interpretation of 'moratorium for construction'
and mathematical calculation, by ignoring the material vital issue of
15% interest charged on housing instalments and non delivery of
sanction plan of building construction submitted to the respondent
alongwith the fee of Rs 5673/- and deducting extension fee for the
years 2005 and 2006 without any demand notice. That the important
decision of 3 years of moratorium from 12.6.2002 was not informed
to the petitioner by the respondent.
That the petitioner is senior citizen of India, his date of birth
being 12.12.1944, is competent to file the SLP (Civil) under Article
136 of the constitution of India against the impugned judgement and
final order of 17th January, 2011.
Question of law:
2. That the following questions of law arises for the kind
consideration of this Hon'ble Court :
a) Whether the decision of the respondent in granting 3 years
moratorium for construction on the plots, vide their policy
letter dt. 5.10.04 (annexure P-2), w.e.f. 12.6.02 to 11.6.05
is not binding on the respondent to honour it and to deny
any consequential effects is not illegal and arbitrary?
b) Whether the condition No 11 of the allotment letter dt.
1.3.2001 had not become non-operative by the own act of
57
-7the respondent after issuing letter dt. 5.10.04 and granting

3 years moratorium for construction on the plot w.e.f.
12.6.02 to 11.6.05 and shifted its operative period of
construction w.e.f. 12.6.05 to 11.6.08 and the petitioner
was entitled to commence and complete the construction
within 3 years after 12.6.2005?
c)
Whether the condition No. 12 of allotment letter dt. 1.3.01

is not binding on the respondent to declare and inform the
petitioner that when it was decided to levy the extension
charges/fee and how much and at what rate?
d) Whether it is not legally mandatory to issue demand notice

to the petitioner for charging extension fee before charging
such an fee?
e) Whether it is not arbitrary and illegal to deduct fee for the
years 2005 and 2006 from the refundable amount of
Rs 40788/- and refund only Rs 27248/- without any details
of deductions and on what account it had deducted
Rs 13539/-?
f)
Whether it is not arbitrary and illegal not to inform the

petitioner about the important decision of 3 years of
moratorium for construction dt. 5.10.04 taken by the policy
branch of the respondent and keep the petitioner in dark
and keep the decision buried in files only?
g) Whether it is not arbitrary and illegal and deficiency in

service by not delivering sanctioned building plan of the plot
No. 245 to the petitioner without which possession and
demarcation of the plot cannot be taken and construction
cannot be started?
h) Whether it is not arbitrary and illegal to charge 15% interest
on plot instalments from the petitioner without declaring
any Government State/Central policy on interest and later
on charging 12% interest on instalments?
i)
Whether it is not arbitrary and illegal to charge extension

fee without taking possession of plot by the petitioner?
j)
Whether it is not illegal on the part of the respondent to
58
- 8-9 not file reply/written statement to the notice issued by the

Hon'ble National Consumer Commission, on 12.7.2010
returnable on 21.9.2010?
3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4 (2).

That the petitioner has not filed any other petition and is
pending seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgement and
final order of Hon'ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission, New Delhi, dt. 17.1.2011 in the matter of Revision
Petition No. 2217 of 2010, in this Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF ORDER XVI, RULE 6.

That the Annexures P-1 to P-14 produced alongwith the Special
Leave Petition (Civil) are true copies of the documents which formed
part of the record of the case Revision Petition No. 2217 of 2010 in
Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi against whose impugned judgement and final order dt.
17.1.2011 the leave is sought to appeal for in this petition.
5. GROUNDS
Being aggrieved by the impugned judgement and final order dt.
17.1.2011 passed by Hon'ble NCDRC, New Delhi in R.P.No. 2217/
2010 the petitioner herein prefers this petition on the following
grounds amongst others :I. Because the Hon'ble NCDRC, New Delhi has erred and
wrongly interpreted the word, 'moratorium' used in following
sentence, "it has been decided that 3 years moratorium period
for the purpose of construction in the residential plots
may be taken w.e.f. 12.6.02 the date on which the zoning
of this area approved and development works completed"
(Annexure P-2). That the meaning given in Concise Oxford
Dictionary, Eleventh Ed. 2004 of word "moratorium" are
given as follows:
"1. a temporary prohibition of an activity,
2. law a legal authorization to debtor to postpone payment."
59
- 10-11 That the meaning in Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary

Allied Publishers, Ed. 1977 are given as follows:
"an emergency measure authorizing the suspension of
payments of debts for a given time : the period thus
declared : a temporary ban on, or decreed cessation of, an
activity."
That in letter dt. 5.10.04 it clearly means moratorium for
construction and the consequential effects/benefits are attached with
it.
II.
That the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission erred and failed to appreciate that the respondent
had not filed any reply/written statement to the notice issued
by them, therefore, had admitted the facts submitted in the
petitioner's RP No 2217/10.
III.
That the NCDRC, New Delhi has erred and failed to

appreciate the fact that at no time the respondent either in
writing or orally argued that meaning of word 'moratorium'
is not for the construction purpose and no subsequental
effects are attached with it. That the National Commission
has erred in making wrong interpretation and dismissed the
RP No. 2217/10 wrongly without going into the merits of the
case.
IV.
That the NCDRC, New Delhi has erred and ignored the
averment of the petitioner that the respondent had charged
15% interest on the instalments of plot arbitrarily and
illegally without declaring any state or central Govt. policy
on interest to be charged from the consumer/alottee of plot.
That later on it was reduced to 12% w.e.f. 3.7.2003 but the
respondent continued to charge 15% from the petitioner.
That under which policy the respondent has been charging
and changing interest rate is not placed on record of the lower
courts.
V.
That the NCDRC, New Delhi has erred and ignored the
mathematical calculations of 3 years of moratorium for
construction granted by the respondent's policy branch w.e.f.
12.6.2002. That according to conditions 11 and 12 of the
60
- 12 allotment letter dt. 1.3.01 the petitioner was to take

possession of plot within 60 days of the letter and construct
the house on plot within 3 years after getting the building
plan approved. That the original time schedule for construction
was 60 days plus 3 years from 1.3.01, it comes to 1.5.04. This
time schedule was changed by the own act of the respondent
vide their letter dt. 5.10.04 wherein 3 years moratorium for
the construction was granted by the policy branch of the
respondent w.e.f. 12.6.2002 to 12.6.05 and by virtue of the
moratorium and in terms of changed conditions 11 and 12
of the allotment letter the petitioner was entitled to
commence and complete the construction within 3 years after
12.6.2005. Even at the cost of repetition it is stated that the
moratorium was for specifically construction and any other
subsequent affect is additional relief to the petitioner as a
consequence to that decision and cannot be denied to the
petitioner. Any denial means afterthought, arbitrary and
unethical.
VI.
That the National Consumer Commission has erred and

ignored the averment of the petitioner that an application for
extension of construction was applied on 12.4.05 but no reply
or any demand for extension fee was received by the
petitioner nor any information was given to the petitioner
that 3 years moratorium period for the construction has been
granted by the policy branch of the respondent vide their
letter dt. 5.10.04.
VII. That the National Consumer Commission has erred and

ignored the averment of the petitioner that the petitioner had
applied for sanction of building plan on 22.9.06 alongwith
fee of Rs. 5673/- but no sanction plan was received by the
petitioner even after reminders. That the petitioner, as a last
resort, had to file a complaint No. 169/07 with the Distt.
Forum, Jalandhar. That upon notice the respondent filed
reply and evidence by way of affidavit. That it was a news
to the petitioner that building plan had been sanctioned by
the respondent on 20.10.06 but only forwarding letter's
photocopy was filed in the court and no copy of building plan
was filed and till date no copy of sanctioned building plan
61
- 13 is delivered to the petitioner. That without the sanctioned

building plan it is not possible to proceed further for
constructing house on the plot.
VIII. That the National Consumer Commission has erred and
ignored the averments of the petitioner that the moratorium
period declared by the respondent was from 12.6.02 to
12.6.05 because of delay in approval of zoning plan. No
demarcation and possession could be taken due to the fact
that infrastructure of roads, sewerage, water pipes, electric
poles etc. were not laid by the respondent therefore, the
construction on plots could not be taken up by the petitioner.
That the decision to grant 3 years moratorium was taken on
5-10-04 and that too this important decision was not
conveyed to the petitioner, that itself speaks of poor
functioning of the respondent and carelessness about the
consumer's interest.
IX.

ignored the argument of the petitioner that as per condition
No 12 of the allotment letter dt. 1.3.01 the respondent is
bound to take a decision from time to time to charge
extension fee but no such decision is taken and placed on the
record of the case in lower courts. That the condition No. 12
is reproduced as under:"In case of, non construction of the plot, on your own
request, you may be allowed extension in time for
construction of the building on payment of extension fees
as determined by the PUDA from time to time."
That at what time and rate the respondent had determined/
decided to start charging extension fee is not placed on the
record of the court/commissions below for kind perusal and
adjudication. Therefore, the whole action of the respondent
is arbitrary, illegal and not in accordance with law.
X.

ignored the averment of the petitioner that actual amount
refundable, as per the respondent, was Rs 40788/- but only
Rs 27249/- was refunded without giving any details of the
62
- 14 refunded amount. That the petitioner came to know that Rs

13549/- (Rs 4839/- for year 2005 and Rs 8700/- for the year
2006) have been deducted as extension fee given the name
as 'adjusted' by the respondent when reply was filed by the
respondent in Hon'ble Distt. Forum, Jalandhar. That the
respondent does not think it necessary to inform the customer
about this adjustment, proves how arbitrary action of the
respondent was.
XI.
That the National Consumer Commission has failed to

appreciate that the Hon'ble Distt. Forum had allowed the
Complaint No 169/07 dt. 18.9.2007 on merits taking into
consideration all the facts and law involved in the case and
was wrongly set aside by Hon'ble State Commission,
Chandigarh.
XII.
That the National Consumer Commission failed to notice that

the petitioner had informed the Hon'ble National Commission
that the petitioner had completed the construction on the plot
No. 245 and had applied for the completion certificate on
25.11.2010 and again on specific form on 23.12.2010 but
completion certificate is not yet issued to the petitioner. That
the petitioner received a letter dt. 23.2.2011 asking the
petitioner to deposit Rs 51640/- as extension fee. That the
petitioner has requested the respondent vide regd. letter dt
3.3.2011 to supply complete details of Rs 51640/-. That the
respondent has already deducted Rs 13539/- as extension fee
for the years 2005 and 2006.
6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

The impugned judgement and order dt. 17.1.2011 if not stayed
would gravely prejudice the petitioner as much as the respondent has
already demanded Rs 51644/- as extension fee vide their letter dt.
23.1.2011 without any details, which is exorbitantly high because
years 2005 and 2006 the respondent had deducted Rs 13539/- and
now for years 2007, 2008 and 2009 the respondent has demanded
Rs 51644/- which is most irrational and illogical. That the petitioner
has completed the construction in the year 2010 and has requested
for completion certificate vide letter dt. 25.11.2010 and 23.12.2010.
63
- 15 The petitioner has a good prima facie case in his favour and the
balance of convenience is also in his favour. Irreparable loss and injury
would be caused to the petitioner if the impugned judgement and
order dt. 17.1.2011 in RP No. 2217/2010 is not stayed by this Hon'ble
Court.
7. MAIN PRAYER:
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may kindly pleased to:
a) grant Special Leave to Appeal againt the final impugned
judgement dt. 17.1.2011 passed by Hon'ble NCDRC, New
Delhi in the R.P.No. 2217 of 2010.
b) Pass other such order/directions as the Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

a) Stay the impugned order/judgement dt. 17.1.2011 passed
by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi in the Revision Petition No. 2217
of 2010.
b) Pass other such order/directions as the Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.
That the petitioner is appearing in person to argue his case.
Kindly allow in person appearance. That the petitioner is senior
citizen, his date of birth being 12.12.1944, the Hon'ble Court may
kindly consider early hearing of the case.
Date : April 19, 2011
Place : New Delhi
Drawn by : Baldev Singh
Petitioner-in-Person
Drawn on : 11.4.2011
Filed on : 19.4.2011
64
- 16 -

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO
2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
Baldev Singh.....................Petitioner
Versus
PUDA, Jalandhar....................Respondent
CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined to the
pleadings before the Court/Tribunal/Forum/Commission whose order
dt. 17.1.11 in R.P.No. 2217/10 is challenged and other documents
relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts, documents or
grounds have been taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave
Petition. It is further certified that copies of the Annexures/documents
attached to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the
question of law raised in the petition for consideration or to make out
grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for consideration of this
Hon'ble Court. This certificate is given by the petitioner and the
petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of the S.L.P. (civil).
New Delhi
Date: April 19, 2011
Filed by
Baldev Singh
65
- 17 -

S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 13719 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
Baldev Singh.....................Petitioner
Versus
PUDA, Jalandhar.......................Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
I, Baldev Singh s/o Late S. Kartar Singh resident of 245, Urban
Estate, Kapurthala 144601 (Pb.) do hereby solemnly declare and
affirm on oath as under:1. That I am the petitioner in the above mentioned case, therefore,
fully conversant with the facts, law and the circumstances of the
case.
2. That the accompanying SLP (Civil) has been drafted by me. The
contents are fully understood by me. The facts given therein are
true to my knowledge and legal submissions are based on my
knowledge.
3. That the SLP (Civil) contains from pages 4 to 17 and para 1 to
8 and the impugned judgement and order dt. 17.1.2011 from
page 1 to 3 in the matter of R.P. No. 2217/2010 and the total
pages of the S.L.P. (Civil) contain 58 pages.
4. That the Annexures P-1 to P-14 are true copies of their respective
originals.
DEPONENT
That the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has been kept
concealed therefrom.
VERIFIED AT : New Delhi
Date : April, 2011
DEPONENT
66
- 18 ANNEXURE P-1
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY, JALANDHAR REGD.
To
S. Baldev Singh s/o S. Kartar Singh,
E- 190, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar.
Memo No.: E.O./PUDA/Jal. 2000/1318
Date : 1.3.01
Sub: Allotment of residential Plot/Site No. 245 measuring 150 Sq.
Yds. In Sector/Phase___________Urban Estate, Kapurthala
Please refer to your application for allotment of residential plot
in the above Urban Estate. Plot No. mentioned above has been
allotted to you through draw of lots. The exact size of the plot is
subject to variation as per actual measurement at the time of
delivery of possession. The terms and conditions of allotment are as
follows:1. Allotment will be governed by the provisions of the Punjab
Urban Planning & Development Act, 1995 and rules and
regulation framed there under and as amended from time to
time.
2. The tentative price of the plot is Rs. 2,77,500/- calculated @
Rs. 1850/- per Sq. Yds.. The above price is tentative and subject
to variation with reference to the actual measurement on the
site as well as in case of enhancement of compensation by Courts
or otherwise. You will be liable to pay the additional price of
the plot in lumpsum, if any, as determined by the authority
within 30 days from the date of demand by the Estate Office,
PUDA, Jalandhar.
3. In case you accept this allotment, please send your acceptance
by registered A.. D. post alongwith an amount of
67
- 19 Rs. 55,500/- (In words fifty five thousand five hundred only)
within 60 days from the date of issue of this allotment letter
which together with an amount of Rs. 13,875/- paid by you
alongwith your application form as earnest money will
constitute 25% of the total tentative price failing which
allotment shall be cancelled and 10% of deposit made, shall be
forfeited and application shall have no claim for damages.
However on the request of the allottee the Chief Administrator
or any other officer authorized by him may allow to make the
payment of the initial amount as the case may be to be made
within a further period of 6 months subject to the conditions
that the request for extension in time should be made by the
allottee within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter.
In that case penal interest at the rate of one and half percent
per mensum.
4. Shall be charged on the amount due. However, if the request
for extension is received after 60 days of the date of issue of
allotment letter, in that case penal interest @ Two percent per
mensum shall be charged on the amount due.
5. In case your refuse to accept the allotment and your refusal is
received after the draw of lots and within 30 days of issue of
allotment letter. In that case 10% of the earnest money
deposited shall be forfeited. In case refusal is received after 30
days and within 60 days of issue of allotment letter, 15% of the
earnest money deposited shall be forfeited. In case refusal/
acceptance is not received within 60 days of the issue of the
allotment letter or refusal is received after making 25%
payment, the action shall be taken under the provision of
Section 45 (3) of Punjab Regional Town Planning and
Development Act.
6. The balance amount i.e. Rs. 2,08,125/- of the tentative price of
the plot, can be paid in lumpsum, without interest within 60
days from the issue of this allotment letter or in 6 half yearly
instalments @ 15% P.A. The first instalment will become due
after one year from the date of allotment. In case of advance
payment of instalment benefits of interest shall be allowed to
the extent of rescheduling the instalment. 5% rebate shall be
68
- 20 allowed on the balance principal amount is paid in lumpsum at

any stage.
7. The six half yearly educated instalments alongwith interest @
15% P.A. will be payable as per following schedule:No. of
Instalment
Due Date
Amount of
Instalment
Interest
Total
amount payable
1st
27-2-2002
34,687-50
31,219-00
65,906-50
2nd
27-8-2002
34,687-50
13,008-00
47,695-50
3rd
27-2-2003
34,687-50
10,406-00
45,039-50
4th
27-8-2003
34,687-50
7,805-00
42,492-50
5th
27-2-2004
34,687-50
5,203-00
39,890-50
6th
27-8-2004
34,687-50
2,602-00
37,289-50
8. Each instalment shall be remitted to Estate Officer, PUDA,

Jalandhar by means of demand draft payable to him on any
scheduled bank situated at Jalandhar in favour of The Estate
Officer, PUDA, and payable at Jalandhar. Each such remittance
shall be accompanied by a letter showing particular of the site
i.e. the number of plot, name of the Urban area, sector number
and date of issue of allotment letter. In the absence of these
particulars, the amount remitted shall not be deemed to have
been received.
9.
No separate notice will be sent for the payment of due

instalments. Payment shall be made in accordance with the
schedule mentioned in clause 6 of this letter.
10.
In case any instalment is not paid by you by the due date

mentioned in clause 6 of the allotment letter then without
prejudice to any action under section 45 of the Punjab Regional
& Town Planning & Development Act, 1995, you shall be liable
to pay interest on the instalment so due @ one and half percent
per mensum for the period of default not exceeding one year
and thereafter @ 2% per mensum till the date, instalment so
due is actually paid or till the date, action is initiated u/s 45
of the said Act, which ever is earlier.
11.
You shall be required to take possession of the plot from Estate
69
- 21 Officer, PUDA, Jalandhar within 60 days of the date of issue of

allotment letter. The site shall be offered on "as is where is" basis
and the allottee shall not be entitled to claim any rebate or
refund on any ground whatsoever. The authority will not be
responsible for leveling the uneven site.
12.
You shall have to complete the building within 3 years from the
date of issue of this letter, after getting the plans of the proposed
building, approved from the Estate Officer. In case of nonconstruction of the plot, on your own request, you may be
allowed extension in time for construction of the building on the
payment of extension fees as determined by PUDA from time
to time. In case, no request is received within 30 days on the
expiry of prescribed period, the Estate Officer shall initiate
proceeding for resumption of plot as per the provisions of Punjab
Urban Planning and Development Authority Act, 1995 and rules
framed there under.
13.
You must construct the building strictly as per the approved

Building Plan and you will also have to obtain occupation
certificate from Estate Officer, PUDA Jalandhar under Rule 10
of the PUDA (Building) Rules, 1996 after completing the
Building. Completion of Building includes its partial completion
that satisfies conditions of Rule 10 of the PUDA (Building) Rules,
1996. Occupation certificate shall be issued only when the
building is completed fully in all respects/partially completed as
per the approved building plan and conditions of Rule 10
relating to partial completion are satisfied. It is made clear that
levying of Extension fees mentioned in clause 11 above shall be
linked to the issuing of Occupation Certificate/partial occupation
certificate under Rule 10.
14.
After raising construction up to roof level, you are required to

get certificate from Estate Officer, PUDA, Jalandhar to the effect
that construction is being made according to the approved
building plan.
15.
On payment of full price along with interest and additional price,

if any, of the plot, you shall execute a deed of conveyance in
the prescribed form in such a manner as may be directed by the
70
- 22-23 Estate Officer with in three months of such direction. The

charges for registration and stamp will be payable by you.
16.
The plot/building shall be used for the residential purpose only

and shall be strictly in accordance with the plans approved by
the competent authority. No obnoxious trade shall be carried out
on this site. Any violation of prescribed use shall render allottee/
owner to such punishment as may be the Authority including
resumption of the plot.
17.
The ownership of the site shall continue to vest in the authority

till whole consideration money and all amount due are finally
paid.
18.
You shall not transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift or

otherwise the plot or any right, title or interest therein except
by way of lease on monthly basis save with the permission of
the Estate Officer. While according such Permission on the
application of the allottee the Estate Officer may impose fee/
charges as may be determined by the authority from time to
time.
19.
No fragmentation of the plot/site/or any structure thereon will

be permitted.
20.
The Authority may, by its officers and officials at all reasonable

times in reasonable manner after 24 hours notice in writing
enter in and upon any part of the plot/building erected whereon
for the purpose of ascertaining that the allottee has duty
performed and observed the conditions to be observed under
the Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority and rules
and regulation, framed there under.
21.
The Authority shall have the full right, powers and authority at
all times to do through its officers or servants all acts and things
which may be necessary or expedient for purpose of enforcing
compliance with all or any of the terms, conditions and
reservations imposed and to recover from you as first change
upon the said plot, the cost of doing all or any such act and
things and all cost incurred therewith, or in any way relation
therewith.
71
- 24 22.
You shall pay all general and local taxes, rates and cesses for
the time being imposed or assessed on the said site by the
competent authority.
23.
The allotment is strictly under the provisions of the Punjab

Urban planning and Development Authority Act, 1995: Rules/
policies framed and as amended from time to time.
24.
In case of breach of any condition of allotment or of regulation

or non-payment of any amount due together with the penalty,
the plot or building there on, as the case may be shall liable to
be resumed and in that case an amount not exceeding 10% of
the total amount of consideration money, interest and other fees
payable in respect of plot shall be forfeited.
25.
Any Change in address must be notified by registered A.D. post

to the Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development
Authority, Jalandhar.
26.
In case of any dispute or difference arising out of terms and

conditions of the present allotment letter, the same shall be
referred to Chief Administrator PUDA. The decision of Chief
Administrator in this regard will be final and binding on both
the parties.
Plot No. 245/150 Yds.

Urban Estate, Kapurthala
ESTATE OFFICER
PUDA, KAPURTHALA
True Copy
Petitioner
72
- 25 ANNEXURE P-2
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEV. AUTHORITY MOHALI

(POLICY BRANCH)
To
THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR,
PUDA, Jalandhar.
No. PUDA-Policy-UE-1/04/3011
Dated: 5.10.04
SUBJECT : Charge of extension fee in residential plots in Urban
Estate, Kapurthala
REF: Your letter No. 6301 dated 2.8.2004
The proposal sent by you vide letter under reference has been
examined and it has been decided that 3 years moratorium period for
the purpose of construction in the residential plots may be taken w.e.f.
12.6.02 the date on which the zoning of this area approved the
development works completed.
As regards charging of interest on the instalments, you are
requested to work out financial implications if the interest is charged
from the date of possession and intimate to this office so that decision
can be taken.
Sd/Administrative Officer (Policy)
For Chief Administrator.
C.C. No. 86/8
Dated 25.10.04
Copy of the above to Milkh Officer, PUDA, Jalandhar for inf. And
n.a.
Additional Chief Administrator.
PUDA, Jalandhar
Copy of the above is forwarded to the S.O. (R)/SDE (B & R)
for inf. and n.a.
Estate Officer,
PUDA, Jalandhar
True Copy
Petitioner
73
- 26 ANNEXURE P-3
REGD.
To
The Estate Officer,
PUDA, SCO 41, Ladowali Road,
Jalandhar.
Sir,
Sub: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION TIME FOR
PLOT NO. 245 MEASURING 150 SQ YDS, PUDA COLONY
KAPURTHALA.
With due respect I hereby submit application for extension of
construction time for two years of the above mentioned plot on
following grounds:1. That I am a retired employee and has purchased plot on
instalments for living a retired life.
2. That I have spent my hard earned savings to purchase this plot.
3. That my only child is Engineering student at GNDU Amritsar
who will complete his degree course in May 2007.
4. That my entire mental and financial resources are focused on
his studies.
That at the moment I am not in position to start construction
of my house for two years and that the time may please be extended.
However, I shall try to get housing loan from some bank and start
construction at the earliest.
Thanking you in anticipation.
12.4.2005
Yours sincerely,
(Baldev Singh)
58, Industrial Complex,
Goindwal- 143 422
True Copy
Petitioner
74
- 27 ANNEXURE P-4
(REGD.)
The Estate Officer,
Jalandhar.
Sir,
Sub: 1. Refund of excess interest charged on plot No. 245, measuring
150 Sq. Yds. Urban Estate, Kapurthala.
2. PUDA colony not fully developed.
1. That I was allotted above mentioned plot vide your office on
1.3.10 (Memo No. EO/PUDA/JAL/2000/1318). That interest
charged on instalments was @15% which was higher and
against National Policy/RBI Rules and Nationalized Banks'
interest rates on housing loans/plots. That PUDA cannot charge
higher interest arbitrary. That it is, therefore, requested to
refund interest already excess charged plus interest on due
amount.
2. That 2001 allottees were allowed one year moratorium on
deposit of instalments and some interest is refunded to all the
allottee, it is, therefore, requested to refund the amount due to
me in that capacity.
3. That I have visited several times the PUDA colony where plot
is allotted to me and I find that it is not fully developed to make
worth living for inhabitants. That not a loaf of bread is available
in the PUDA colony nor is any medical facility/medicine shop
is there. Any school is a far distant dream for children of this
PUDA colony. Early action is requested on above mentioned
points.
Yours Sincerely,
(Baldev Singh)
H. No. 58,
Industrial Complex,
Goindwal 143 422
April 17, 2006
True Copy
Petitioner
75
- 28 ANNEXURE P-5
H. No. 58, Industrial Complex,
Goindwal 143 422
July 22, 2006
APPLICATION FOR SANCTION OF BUILDING

PLAN, RESIDENTIAL
To
The Estate Officer,
Jalandhar.
Sir,
I, hereby apply for permission to erect a building in accordance
with the plan duly submitted herewith for residential plot No 245,
PUDA colony Kapurthala :
2. I attach in triplicate a site plan showing position of site proposed
to be built upon as required by the PUDA (Building) Rules 1966.
Plans, elevation and section of the proposed buildings required
by the PUDA rules 1966.
Water supply, drainage plans, structural stability certificate,
scheme for fire safety, specification certificate issued by PUDA
approved Architect (Mittal & Associates).
3. No Due certificate dated 1.12.04
4. Proof of PUDA allotment letter dt. 1.3.2001
5. You are also requested to note change in address. At the time
of allotment I was posted at Amritsar now I live in my own house
at Goindwal (Distt. Tarn Taran).
It is, therefore, humbly requested to inform me if any other
information/documents are required. Please record sanction at the
earliest.
Yours Sincerely
(Baldev Singh)
July 22, 2006
True Copy
Petitioner
76
- 29 ANNEXURE P-6
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY JALANDHAR
To
Sh. Baldev Singh S/O Sh Kartar Singh,
58, Industrial Complex, Goindwal,
Distt. Tarn Taran
No 11311
Dated 9.8.06
Subject: Application for sanction of Building Plan Plot No. 245, in
Urban Estate, Kapurthala
Ref:
Your letter dated 26.7.06
Before further action is taken on the subject cited above, you
are asked to apply on the prescribed form alongwith requisite fee of
PUDA. Your application as received from you vide your letter under
reference is returned herewith. Form can be had from the office on
free of cost.
DA/AS above
Estate Officer,
PUDA, Jalandhar.
True Copy
Petitioner
77
- 30 ANNEXURE P-7
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY-JALANDHAR
(Registered)
To
Sh. Baldev Singh,
S/O Late Sh Kartar Singh,
R/O H. No. 58, Phase- I Industrial Complex,
Goindwal 143 422
Memo No. E.O. PUDA=Jal/A/cs/2006/11981
Dated 29.8.06
Subject : Refund of Plot No. 245, U/E, Kapurthala Excess Amount
Please find enclosed herewith a cheque No. 572581 dated
28.8.06 amounting to Rs 27249/- in words Rs Twenty seven thousand
two hundred forty nine only on a/c of refund of plot No. 245,
U/E, Kapurthala.
DA/AS above
Estate Officer
PUDA, Jalandhar.
True Copy
Petitioner
78
- 31 -
ANNEXURE P-8
FORM VII
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEV. AUTHORITY

URBAN ESTATE, KAPURTHALA
APPLICATION FORM FOR SANCTION OF

BUILDING PLAN
Class of Building : Residential
From : Sh. Baldev Singh, 58,
Industrial Complex, Goindwal 143 422.
To
Estate Officer,
Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority.
PUDA, Complex, Jalandhar.
Sir,
I/we apply for permission to erect/re-erect/add/alter a building/
wall in accordance with the plans submitted herewith on site No. 245.
2. I/we attach
a) A site plan in triplicate showing the position of site proposed
to be built upon as required by the Punjab Urban Planning
& Dev. Authority (Building) Rule 1996.
b) Plans elevation and sections of the proposed buildings
required by the PUDA (Building) Rules, 1996.
c) Water supply, drainage plans, structural stability certificate,
scheme for fire safety and fire-fighting system and equipment,
electrical scheme for air conditioning and air cooling as
required by the rules ibid.
3. The construction of the building will be supervised by the
registered Architect of the registered Engineer.
4. Bank DD No. 927100 dt. 22.9.06 for Rs 5673/Dated 22.9.06
Signature
Encls : 17
Details of fee : Scrutiny fee @ Rs. 2.50/sft for an area of 1869 SFT
i.e. 1869 X 2.50 = 4672.50
Security fee = 1000.00
Total = 5672.50
True Copy
Petitioner
79
- 32 ANNEXURE P-9
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR
Case No. 169/07
Baldev Singh, House No. 58, Industrial Complex,
Goindwal 143 422 ...............Petitioner
VERSUS
Punjab Urban & Development Authority (PUDA)
Through Estate Office, SCO-41
Ladowali Road, Jalandhar..............Respondent
Application under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for
1. REFUND OF BALANCE AMOUNT WITH 15% INTEREST ON
DUE AMOUNT FROM DUE DATE ON INSTALMENTS OF PLOT
NO. 245, URBAN ESTATE, KAPURTHALA.
2. SANCTION OF BUILDING PLAN ON PLOT NO. 245 SUBMITTED
ON 22.9.06 WITH BANK DRAFT FOR RS. 5673/-
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That petitioner was allotted plot No. 245, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala vide letter No. EO/PUDA/Jal./2000/1318 dt. 1.3.01 with
15% interest on instalments schedule as under:
1st instalment due date 27.2.2002.
2nd instalment due date 27.8.2002.
3rd instalment due date 27.2.2003.
4th instalment due date 27.8.2003.
5th instalment due date 27.2.2004. and
6th instalment due date 27.8.2004.
That petitioner paid all the instalments on aforesaid dates but
PUDA had declared one year moratorium on deposit of instalment but
petitioner was not informed about the important decision.
That the petitioner was charged 15% interest on housing plot
80
- 33 against the national/Bank policy of charging 9% to 11% interest on

housing loan/plot loan. That the act of respondent was arbitrary and
in gross violation of Govt./RBI policy, therefore, illegal. That
petitioner made REGD. representations on 17.4.2006 and 26.6.06
requesting the respondent the excess interest charged and interest
charged over moratorium period. That same letters are annexures
P-1 and P-2 with this petition.
That PUDA is charging 12% interest on plot instalments at
present.
2. That respondent sent me cheque for Rs. 27249/- on 29.8.06
on account of plot No. 245. that amount of refund plus interest is much
more, say about 35000/- but respondent has not given any details of
refund like since when it is due, how much amount was due, period
of moratorium, if any interest paid etc. that the letter dt. 29.8.06 is
Annexure P-3.
3. That petitioner submitted an application along with building
plan for plot No 245 on 22.7.2006 along with 15 enclosures for
sanction. That it was returned on 9.8.06 and asked to apply on
prescribed form along with requisite fee of PUDA. That same letter
is Annexure P-5.
4. That petitioner followed the instruction of PUDA and
submitted application on prescribed form along with PUDA fee of Rs.
5673/- by way of Bank draft on 22.9.06 along with 17 enclosures by
REGD post. That the copy of prescribed application form is Annexure
P-6 with this petition.
5. That after waiting for some time petitioner sent a REGD.
Reminder on 10.11.2006 but nothing came out of it and finally
petitioner sent a REGD. Notice on 10.1.2007 stating that if sanction
of plan is not issued, petitioner shall proceed with appropriate action
in the matter, action of respondent being violation of Consumer
Protection Act-1986. That the letter dt. 10.11.06 and 10.1.07 are
Annexures P-7 and P-8 respectively with this petition.
That the petitioner is senior citizen, his date of birth being
12.12.1944, and is liable for consideration in deciding the case as
such.
81
- 34 It is, therefore, respectfully requested to direct the respondent

to pay the balance amount due with 15% interest from due date on
plot instalments and sanction the building plan of plot submitted on
22.9.06 along with PUDA fee of Rs. 5673/-. That cost of petition be
awarded to petitioner.
Date: April 13, 2007
(Baldev Singh)
True Copy
Petitioner
82
- 35 ANNEXURE P-10
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEV. AUTHORITY

PUDA Complex, SCO 41, Opp. D.C. Complex, Jalandhar.
To
Sh. Baldev Singh,
58, Industrial Complex,
Goindwal Distt. Tarn Taran.
Letter No. EO-PUDA, Jalandhar-S2-2007/7622
Dated 3.8.07
Subject :
Plot No 245 Urban Estate, Kapurthala, about taking

possession.
Reference : Your letter dt. 13.7.2007.
With reference to above mentioned letter/subject you are hereby
informed that you may contact SDE (B.ED.E), PUDA, Jalandhar on
any working day for taking demarcation of the plot.
Milkh officer
PUDA, Jalandhar
C.C. No EO/PUDA-Jalandhar-S-2-2007
Dt.
Copy of the above to SDE (B & E), PUDA, Jalandhar is being

sent for necessary action please.
Milkh officer
PUDA, Jalandhar
True copy of Original Punjabi
Petitioner
83
- 36 ANNEXURE P-11
BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
JALANDHAR
Baldev Singh
VERSUS
PUDA
EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT BY WAY OF

AFFIDAVIT
I, Harbir Singh, Estate Officer, P.U.D.A., Jalandhar, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:1. That the complainant has not filed the present complaint by
arraying proper officer and as such the complaint is not
maintainable. The complainant ought to have arrayed the Chief
Administrator and ACA PUDA as the party to the present
complaint.
2. That the present complainant has no legal right to claim any
relief by filing the present complaint, as he has been already
refunded with the amount of interest on account of delay in
approval of zoning plan which was approved on 12.06.2002,
and as such the interest charged has been refunded.
3. That the interest has been charged according to the Allotment
Letter as per PUDA policy and the rules and any change in
interest is also applicable as per the amendment made in it.
Rather the interest @ 12% has been charged w.e.f. 03.07.2003
onwards due to change in policy of the respondent PUDA in
interest clause.
4. That since the answering respondent is not banking industry,
84
- 37 as such the National Banking Policy/R.B.I. Policy are not

applicable to the present complaint.
5. That the complainant has not come to the court with clean
hands as the sum of Rs. 40,788/- has been refunded on account
of refund in interest charged, as there has been delay in zoning
plan and out of such amount, a sum of Rs. 4,839/- and a sum
of Rs. 8,700/- has been deducted on account of the adjustment
towards the extension fee liable to be paid by the complainant
for the year 2005 & 2006.
6. That even the moratorium period of three years has also been
given for the purpose of construction, which period is to be taken
from 12.06.2002, the date on which the zoning area was
approved and development works completed.
7. That the complainant has no cause of action to file the present
complaint, as he is not entitled to refund of any such 15%
interest from due date of instalment, as no relaxation has to be
given on interest of instalment. The benefit of refund of interest
on the amount prior to approval of zoning plan has already been
provided to the complainant. Even the building plan has been
sanctioned on the receipt of the building plan on 28.9.2006 as
per the record maintained by the respondent PUDA.
8. That the complaint filed by the complainant is otherwise
infructuous as described above, as everything has been
sanctioned and the refund has also been made.
9. That the complaint is estopped from filling the present
complaint by his own act and conduct.
10. That the present complaint is based on false and frivolous
grounds.
11. That the complainant no more now stands as a consumer for
the present dispute and as such this Hon'ble forum has no
jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint.
12. That no cause of action has been pleaded against the respondent
PUDA as to how the cause of action accrued.
85
- 38 -
ON MERITS :
1. That in reply to the para No. 1 of the complaint, it is submitted
that the same is a matter or record and needs no reply.
It is further submitted that the making of the payment to the
respondent PUDA is also a matter of record. The respondent
PUDA has never declared one year moratorium period on the
deposit of instalments as alleged by the complainant in the
present complaint, which is absolutely false and against the
PUDA record, as three years moratorium period has been
granted by the respondent PUDA to all the allottees including
that of the complainant for the purpose of raising of the
construction on account of the delay in approval of the Zoning
Plan, which got approved on 12.06.2002 onwards. The said
decision taken by the respondent PUDA has been applied in the
case of the present complainant, as such the question of not
informing to the complainant is absolutely false. It is further
submitted that the alleged charging of the interest
@ 15% on the housing plot by saying the same to be against
the National Policy/Bank Policy, is not applicable at all to the
present case of the complainant because the interest in the
present case of the complainant has to be charged in
accordance with the conditions of the Allotment Letter, which
conditions have been voluntarily accepted by the complainant
including all other Allottees and the respondent being not
banking industry. Thus the complainant is bound to pay the
interest @ 15% on the instalments as per the Allotment Letter
being bound by the terms of the contract, voluntarily accepted
by the complainant. The said interest has to be paid by the
complainant because of the mode of the payment adopted by
him for making the payment in respect of the allotted plot. In
case of making the necessary payment of the allotted plot in
lump sum, he was entitled to 5% rebate, which mode of making
the payment in lump sum has never been chosen by the
complainant. Thus the complainant is bound to pay the
interest on the instalments. However on account of delay in
approval of the Zoning Plan, the interest amount has been
refunded by the respondent PUDA like other allottees, as per
the policy decision. The act of the respondent PUDA has never
86
- 39 been in gross violation of R.B.I. policy or Govt. policy as the

respondent PUDA is not banking industry. The same is strictly
in accordance with the PUDA policy of the Govt. and the
Allotment Letter has been never be said to be illegal, arbitrary,
as the Allotment Letter has been well accepted by the
complainant, thereby binding himself liable to pay the same as
per the said letter. The questioning of the same at this stage is
totally irrelevant and not permissible to the complainant and the
allotment letter is binding upon the complainant. The future
interest w.e.f. 3.07.2003 is being charged @ 12% as per the
revised policy decision of the PUDA and as such the benefit of
the same has already been provided to the complainant from
the said period.
that the sending of the cheque and the receipt of the same for
a sum of Rs 27,249/- is a matter of record. However it is
important to mention here that the refund of the amount of the
interest is not about Rs. 35,000/- as alleged by the complainant
but the same is much and much more i.e. the refunded amount
on account of the refund in interest has been calculated to be
Rs. 40,788/- and the same has been actually made out as per the
respondent PUDA books/calculations and out of this amount,
a sum of Rs. 4,839/- and a sum of Rs 8,700/- has been
deducted on account of the adjustment towards the extension fee
liable to be paid by the complainant for the year 2005 & 2006
respectively. Thus a sum of Rs. 40,788 minus Rs 13,539/(Rs. 4,839/- + Rs. 8,700/- = Rs. 13,539/-, after making the
adjustment towards the extension fee charged for the year 2005
& 2006) = Rs. 27,349/- has been refunded by way of the cheque.
The detail of the same can be collected by the complainant from
the office at any time and the respondent PUDA has never
refused for the same nor the complainant has never come to the
office to demand the same and to raise any objection regarding
the same. Rather the allegations of saying that the amount is Rs.
35,000/- to be refunded is nullified, when the respondent PUDA
has made it clear that the refund amount on account of interest
is Rs. 40,788/-. Thus the respondent PUDA has been acting
honestly and implementing the same as per the policy decision.
87
- 40 3. That in reply to the para No. 3 of the complaint, it is submitted

that the sending of the application is matter of record. However
it is important to mention here that the complainant has
received the application on 25.07.2006. The same was returned
on 9.08.2006 on account of the fact that the application was not
a prescribed format of the respondent PUDA and as such the
same was returned for the fresh presentation on the prescribed
format as per the respondent PUDA policy decision applicable
in all case of allotment/other allottees also. Thus the same was
returned on account of the said mandatory formality to be
observed by the complainant like other.
that the submission of the application on the prescribed format
along with the PUDA fee of Rs. 5,673/- by way of the bank draft
along with enclosures if any are a matter of record. However
it is important to mention here that the same was received in
this office of respondent PUDA on 28.09.2006, vide receipt No.
1176/61 dated 28.09.2006.
5. That in reply to the para No. 5 of the complainant, it is submitted
that the sending of the reminders to the respondent PUDA is
of no use, as the interest amount has been refunded to the
complainant as per the PUDA policy after making the necessary
adjustment/deductions towards the extension fee for the year
2005 & 2006. Even the site plan submitted on the prescribed
format for the first time was got sanctioned on 20.10.2006 with
any delay.
That the complaint be dismissed with costs as the complaint is
not entitled to any relief so prayed for and the same is absolutely false
and claimed wrongly. Rather the complaint be burdened with heavy
costs for filing false and frivolous complaint along with the costs for
the counsel expenses, in the interest of justice.
The deponent tenders into evidence on behalf of the respondent
PUDA the attested copies of the documents Ex. R-1 to R-6, the said
original documents in the custody of respondent PUDA, which may
be read into evidence.
(DEPONENT)
88
- 41 -
VERIFICATION
I, Harbir Singh, Estate Officer, PUDA, Jalandhar, do hereby
solemnly declare and state that the contents and particulars of the
affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
gathers on the basis the record maintained in the office, nothing stated
therein false and nothing has been concealed therein.
Verified at Jalandhar on 21.8.07
(DEPONENT)
True copy
Petitioner
89
- 42 ANNEXURE P-12
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR
Consumer Complaint No. 169 of 2007
Date of Institution 26.4.2007
Date of Decision 18.9.2007
Baldev Singh, House No. 58, Industrial Complex,
Goindwal 143 422.....................Complainant.........
VERSUS
Punjab Urban & Development Authority (PUDA) Through Estate
Office, SCO-4, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar........Opposite Party......
COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Before: SH. M.M. BHALLA, PRESIDENT
MRS. RAKESH KUMARI, MEMBER
PRESENT: Baldev Singh Complainant in person
Sh. Rajesh Mehta, Counsel for the opposite party.
ORDER
M.M. BHALLA, PRESIDENT
1. Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging that he was
allotted plots in Kapurthala Urban Estate in 2001 and amount
was to be paid in instalments from 27.2.2002 to 27.8.2004.
Complainant alleged that he had paid the instalments according
to schedule but the O.P. declared one year moratorium on
deposit of instalments but he was not informed about the
important decision and he was charged 15% interest on housing
plot.
2. Complainant had alleged that he had written letter to the
respondent for the excess amount charged from him but he has
been only refunded Rs. 27,249/- and the respondent had not
refund nor had given detail of due refund. He has alleged that
90
- 43 his application was sanction of building plan was not approved.

As a result he has filed the present complaint for directing the
respondent to refund the excess interest charged from him and
he has also requested that building plan submitted by him be
sanctioned.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite party who appeared and
opposed the complaint mainly on the ground that amount of
Rs. 27,249/- has refunded to the complainant after making
adjustment of Rs. 13,539/- which has been charged excess as
extension fee charged for the years 2005 and 2006. Respondent
prayed that complaint is not maintainable and same be dismissed.
4. The complainant in order to prove his case has produced into
evidence affidavit EX C-1. On the other hand opposite party has
produced into evidence affidavit EX R-1/A and copies of
documents Ex R-1 to Ex R-6.
5. In this case, the complainant had urged that building plan was
sanctioned on 20.10.2006 and according to letter 3.8.2007, the
possession of the plot has not been delivered to the complainant.
Therefore, he has been called to get the possession. As such
calculation of the respondent in charging extension fee for year
2005 and 2006 and deduction of the amount of Rs. 13,539/on that account is unjustified and the respondent had not to
charge any construction fee till demarcation and possession is
given to the respondent.
6. Counsel for the respondent urged that further amount claimed
by the complainant is not justified as they have themselves
refunded the amount but in this case, the amount was refunded
only after institution of the complaint and even then amount of
Rs. 13,539/- was illegally deducted for adjustment of extension
fee for year 2005 and 2006 but that stand of the respondent
is not justified.
7. Therefore, we allow the complaint. Respondents are directed
to give demarcation and possession to the complainant.
Respondent would not charge any non-construction fee till
demarcation and possession is given to the complainant.
Respondents are also directed to pay Rs. 13,539/- to the
91
- 44 complainant with 9% interest from 24.4.2006 till payment.

Complainant is also awarded Rs. 3000/- as costs of litigation.
Compliance of the order be made within one month from the
receipt of the copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to
the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned.
ANNOUNCED
18-9-2007
(RAKESH KUMARI)
MEMBER
True copy
Petitioner
(M.M. BHALLA)
PRESIDENT
92
- 45 ANNEXURE P-13
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SCO NOS. 3009-12,
SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1589 of 2007
Date of Institution : 7.12.2007
Date of Decision: 19.4.2010
Punjab Urban & Development Authority (PUDA) through
Estate Officer, SCO 41, Ladowali, Jalandhar.
.................Appellant
VERSUS
Baldev Singh, House No. 58, Industrial Complex, Goindwal 143 422
..............Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 18.9.2007 of the District
Consumer Disputes, Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Before:- Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Presiding Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member
Present:-For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Sh. Baldev Singh, in person.
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party (in short,
"the appellant") against the order 18-09-2007 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short, "the District Forum"),
by which the complaint of the respondent/complainant (in short, "the
respondent") was allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had allotted plot
No. 245 measuring 150 sq. in Kapurthala Urban Estate in the
year 2001 to the respondent. The respondent had paid the
amount in instalments as per schedule from 27-2-2002 to
93
- 46 27-08-2004. The appellant has declared three years moratorium

w.e.f. 12.06.2002 on deposit of instalment but no information of
the same was given to the respondent. The appellant has charged
interest @ 15% per annum on the instalment of the plot illegally.
The version of the respondent was that he has made
representations through registered letter dated 17.4.2006 and
26.6.2006 for the refund of interest, which was charged in excess
during the moratorium period. The appellant had refunded only
Rs. 27,249/- vide cheque dated 29.8.2006 but no detail of the
same was given. The respondent has also alleged in the
complaint that he has submitted the building plan with the
appellant for its approval but the same was not approved despite
registered reminders given by him. The complaint was filed by
the respondent with the prayer for the direction to the appellant
to pay the balance amount due with 15% interest and for the
sanction of the building plan submitted by the respondent on
22.9.2006 along with fee of Rs. 5,673/-.
3. Appellant replied by taking preliminary objection that complaint
was not maintained as chief Administrator and ACA PUDA was
not impleaded as party, complaint was infructuous as site plan
has been sanctioned and the amount has already been refunded,
respondent was estopped from filing the compliant by way of his
own act and conduct, complaint was based on false and frivolous
grounds, respondent had no more consumer as such, the
Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the
complaint, no cause of action has been accrued against the
appellant. On merits, it was pleaded that Rs. 27,349/- had been
refunded to the respondent after making adjustment of
Rs. 13,539/- (Rs. 4,839/- plus Rs. 8,700/-) from Rs. 40,788/towards the extension fee charges for the year 2005 and 2006.
It was pleaded that providing the detail of the same has never
been refused to the respondent and the respondent can collect
the same from the office at any time. The appellant has been
acting honestly and implementing the same as per the policy
decision.
4. The respondent filed the replication by which the detailed reply
of the preliminary objections as well as objections on merits was
given.
94
- 47 5. Learned District Forum after hearing the respondent and learned

counsel for the opposite party and going through the record,
allowed the complaint and the appellant was directed to give
demarcation and possession to the respondent and not to charge
any non-construction fee. Appellant was further directed to pay
Rs. 13,539/- with 9% interest from 24.4.2006 till payment with
costs of Rs. 3000/- as litigation expenses.
6. Hence, the appeal.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the
record of the learned District Forum and arguments of the
learned counsel for the parties.
8. There is no dispute between the parties that plot No. 245,
measuring 150 Sq. Yds. was allotted on 1.3.2001 in Urban
Estate, Kapurthala by the appellant to the respondent vide
allotment letter Ex. R-1.
9. As per Condition No. 11 of the allotment letter, the allottee was
required to take the possession of the plot from the Estate
Officer, PUDA, Jalandhar within 60 days of the date of issue of
allotment letter and the side was offered on "as is where is" basis
and the allotment was not entitled to claim any rebate or refund
or any ground whatsoever.
10. As per letter Ex. R-2 dated 5.10.2004, it was decided by Punjab
Urban Planning & Development Authority, Mohali (Policy
Branch) that three years moratorium for purpose of construction
in the residential plots in Urban Estate, Kapurthala may be taken
w.e.f. 12.6.2002, the date on which the zoning of this area
approved and development works completed.
11. As per the above policy, three years time was given by the
appellant to the allottees to complete the construction within
three years from 12.6.2002 till 11.6.2005.
12. The respondent applied for the possession of the plot No. 245
to the appellant vide letter dated 13.7.2007 and reply to this
letter was given by the appellant to the respondent vide letter
No. 7622 dated 3.8.2007 that he can take the demarcation of
the plot from Sub Division Engineer (B & E), PUDA, Jalandhar
on any working day.
95
- 48-49 13. It is the appellant to the respondent that he had approached the
appellant before 13.7.2007 for the delivery of possession as he
was bound to take the plot within 60 days from the issuance of
allotment letter, which was issued to him on 1.3.2001.
14. It is also admitted case of the respondent that he had submitted
an appellant along with building plan for approval of the same
on 22.7.2006 but he was bound to complete the construction
up to 11.6.2005 as per letter Ex. R-2 of the appellant by which
three years moratorium period was given for the construction
of the residential plots by the Punjab Urban Development and
Planning Authority, Mohali (Policy Branch).
15. So from the pleadings as well as evidence produced by the
respondent, it is clear that the respondent has not completed
the construction of the plot within three years as per Condition
No. 12 of the allotment letter Ex. R-1 and as such, he was liable
to pay the extension fee for the years 2005 and 2006.
16. The appellant has deducted Rs. 4,839/- plus Rs. 8,700/- total
Rs. 13,539/- as extension fee for the year of 2005 and 2006,
respectively from the amount of Rs. 40,788/-, which was
payable by the appellant to the respondent on account of
interest, which was charged by the appellant from the
respondent in excess.
17. So from the above discussion, we are of the view that the
appellant was entitled to recover the extension fee for the
year/period of 2005 and 2006 from the respondent, as such,
Rs. 13,539/- was deducted correctly by the appellant for which
the respondent was liable for which the respondent was liable to
pay to the appellant as extension fee for the years of 2005 and
2006.
18. We find merit in the appeal of the appellant and the same is
accepted. Impugned order dated 18.9.2007 of the district Forum
is set aside. No order as to costs.
19. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 7.4.2010 and the
order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the
parties.
96
- 50 20. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 9,260/- with this
commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of
Rs. 9,260/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted
by the registry to the appellant by way of a cross cheque/
demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to
the learned District Forum.
21. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due
to heavy pendency of Court cases.
22. Copy of this order be sent at respondent's present residential
address.
Sd/Presiding Member
Sd/Member
April 19, 2010

True copy
Petitioner
97
- 51 ANNEXURE P- 14
BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
R.P. NO 2217 OF 2010
Baldev Singh
853, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala 244601
..............Appellant
VERSUS
Punjab Urban & Development Authority,

Through, Estate Officer
SCO 41, Ladowali Road,
Jalandhar City (Pb.)
...............Respondent
Appeal Under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection
Act-86 against the order dt. 19.4.10, erroneously and wrongly
passed by Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, (2nd Branch), at Chandigarh in First Appeal No.
1589 of 07 setting aside the Order passed in complaint No.
169 of 2007 by Ld. District Forum, Jalandhar on 18.9.07.

1. That the appellant is filing the appeal within the period of
limitation as provided in the Consumer Protection Act-86,
against the Order dt. 19.04.10, passed by Hon'ble Punjab State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (2nd Bench) at
Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 1589 of 07, setting aside the
order dt. 18.09.07 passed in Complaint No. 169 of Ld. District
Forum, Jalandhar on merits. That the certified copy of the
impugned Order dt. 19.4.10 was received by the Appellant by
REGD post on 14.05.10. That the same order is at pages 12 to
16 herewith for reference and record.
2. That the brief facts of the complaint/case, which culminated
into the passing of the impugned order dt. 19.04.10 are here
under:
98
- 52 i)
That the appellant was allotted a plot No. 245 at Urban

Estate, Kapurthala through draw of lots. The allotment letter
had time schedule for the payment of plot and it was paid
accordingly and the appellant got 'No Due Certificate' from
the respondent vide its letter dt. 01.12.04.
ii) That the respondent has been charging 15% interest on

instalments due without declaring any National or the state
policy on interest charges with regards to housing loans/
plots. That the appellant sent a REGD letter dt. 17.04.06 to
the respondent requesting for refund of excess amount
charged. That in para 3 of aforesaid letter was also stated
that PUDA colony is not worth living and it is not developed.
iii) That the appellant sent another reminder on 26.06.06 and
the appellant received a refund cheque for Rs. 27249/- vide
PUDA letter dt. 29.08.06. It stated on a/c of refund of plot
No. 245 U/E Kapurthala. No details were furnished.
iv) That the appellant had applied for "Sanction of Building
Plan on 22.09.06 along with Bank Draft of Rs. 5673/- to the
respondent but no sanction was received. Aggrieved the
appellant filed a complaint No 169/07 Before the Distt.
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar. Upon
notice written stated was filled by the respondent. That
appellant was surprised to know for the first time that three
years moratorium was declared for construction by the
respondent and that such an important decision was not
informed to the complainant, who continued to deposit his
instalments as per schedule of allotment letter. That the
actual refundable amount, as per the respondent, was
Rs. 40788.00 but only Rs. 27249.00 was refunded and
remaining Rs. 13539.00 no details/information was given
in forwarding letter dt. 29.08.06. That it was only in the
written statement filed, the complainant came to know that
the amount has been "adjusted" towards extension fee/nonconstruction charges. That no notice was ever sent for such
an fee. That it was also a news to the appellant, in written
statement, that building plan of the appellant has been
sanctioned but it is not delivered till date to the appellant.
99
- 53 v) That the moratorium period declared by the respondent was

from 12.06.02 to 12.06.05 because of delay in approval of
zoning plan. No demarcation and possession could be taken
due to this fact and no extension fee could be charged
without any decision to charge the fee in terms of condition
12 of the allotment letter to the appellant. Therefore,
considering these facts and in accordance with the law
complaint No 169/2007 was allowed on merits on 18.9.07.
That the complaint No. 169/07 with complete case and the
order dated 18.09.07 are Annexure A-1 and A-2 with this
appeal respectively, for reference and record please.
vi) That the respondent filed Appeal No. 1589 of 07 on 7.12.07,
which came to be decided on 19.4.10, setting aside the order
dated 18.9.07 of the Ld. District Forum, Jalandhar erroneously
and wrongly by Hon'ble Punjab State Commission (2nd
Bench) at Chandigarh. That the appeal of the respondent
and written statement of this appellant are Annexures A-3
and A-4, respectively with this appeal for ready reference
and record please.
vii) That aggrieved by the impugned order dt. 19.4.10 passed
by Hon'ble Punjab State Commission (2nd Bench) at
Chandigarh in Appeal No 1589 of 07, the appellant is filling
the instant appeal.
3. That the Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab has erred in
ignoring the averment that no demand notice was ever sent to
appellant for deposit of extension fee/non-construction charges
by the respondent PUDA. That the charges deducted without
information/details by the respondent from the appellant's
refundable amount of Rs. 40788/- is arbitrary, illegal and not
in accordance with the law.
4. That the State Commission has erred in ignoring the averment
of the appellant that condition 12 of the allotment letter says,
"In case of non construction of the plot, on your own request,
you may be allowed extension in time for construction of the
building on the payment of extension fees as determined by
PUDA from time to time".
100
- 54 That at what time and rate the respondent had determined/

decided to start charging extension fees is not placed or record, either
at Ld. District Forum or Hon'ble State Commission, therefore, the
whole action of the respondent PUDA is arbitrary, illegal and not in
accordance with law.
5. That the State Commission has erred in ignoring the fact that
after declaring moratorium for three years from 12.6.02
conditions of allotment letter No. 11 and 12 become nonoperational by the own act of the respondent, therefore,
allowing appeal on this ground is erroneous and wrong. That
the delay in sanction of zoning plan was due to the fact that
infrastructure of roads, sewerage, water pipes were not laid nor
electric poles were erected, therefore not fit to give demarcation
and possession of plots. No one could build a house under such
circumstances. That the respondent was not in position to give
demarcation and possession of plots.
6. That the State Commission has erred to ignore the fact that after
three years moratorium for construction ends on 12.6.05, three
years of construction period under condition 12 starts w.e.f.
13.06.05 and remains in force till 12.06.08, therefore, charging
extension fees for years 2005 and 2006 is arbitrary illegal and
not in accordance with law. That only after 12.6.08 and taking
a decision under condition 12 of the allotment letter and also
after demand notice and not before that. Actually the
respondent is making wrong calculation of three years of
moratorium time available to the appellant as per original
schedule in its date of allotment letter plus 2 months plus 3
years, it comes to 1.5.04.
7. That the State Commission erred to ignore the fact that the
appellant had applied for time for extension of construction vide
his Regd. Letter dated 12.4.2005 and even then the respondent
did not demand specifically any extension fees.
8. That the State Commission has erred to ignore the averment
of the appellant that sanction plan of plot No. 245 of the
appellant is not delivered to him. Sanction remains in papers
only.
101
- 55-56 9. That the State Commission has erred to ignore the Hon'ble
Supreme Court Judgement of 15.6.06 in Civil Appeal No. 2751
of 06. That the para 12 of the judgement is reproduced here
under:"The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying
precedents have become locus classics:
Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity
between one case and another is not enough because even
a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect."
That in this case, cases referred by the respondent PUDA in its
appeal in State Commission are not similar. In all those cases
Demand Notice was issued but in the case in hand no such legal
requirement was completed. But on the contrary the amount
was deducted from the refundable amount and no information
or details were given to the appellant.
10. That the Hon'ble State Commission has erred in ignoring the
averment of the appellant that how the respondent PUDA was
charging 15% interest on housing instalments and then reduced
it to 12% w.e.f. 3.7.03. That, is there any National or State
policy for charging such an exorbitant interest or it is being
charged arbitrarily without following any policy. That the
Central Govt. RBI and nationalized banks charge much less
interest than the respondent. That no such policy has been
placed on record for adjudication of the State Commission,
therefore, matter deserves serious consideration of the Hon'ble
National Commission.
11. That the State Commission has erred to ignore the averment of
the appellant that in terms of allotment letter schedule for
payment of instalments were charged interest @ 15% but the
respondent by its own admission had started charging interest
@ 12% w.e.f. 3.7.03 but the schedule of payment was not
reduced to charge 12% from 15% therefore, without any details
given by the respondent PUDA, it appears there has to be more
refund of higher interest already charged. In absence of details
there is apprehension of concealment of facts. It appears that
102
- 57 interest is charged @ 15% but refund was made @ 12%,

therefore more refund is due from the respondents.
12. That in view of the facts stated above, legal position and the
grounds therein the present appeal may kindly be allowed and
the impugned order dt. 19.4.10 in Appeal No. 1589/07 passed
by Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab (2nd Bench), Chandigarh
may kindly be set aside, in the interest of justice.
It is, most humbly prayed that the operation/execution of the
impugned order dt. 19.4.10 may kindly be stayed during the pedency
of the present appeal in the interest of justice and fair play. That the
balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant and against the
respondent. That the Hon'ble National Commission may pass
appropriate order/directions as considered fit in the facts that the
circumstances of the case.
New Delhi
Dated: June 10, 2010
(Baldev Singh)
Appellant-in-Person
True copy
Petitioner
103
- 58 -
BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
AFFIDAVIT
I, Baldev Singh son of Late Sh. Kartar Singh, 65 years of age
and resident of 853, Urban Estate, Kapurthala-144601 do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:1. That my date of birth is 12.12.1944 (twelve thousand nineteen
forty four), thus a senior citizen.
2. That I have filed an appeal in the National Consumer
Commission, New Delhi u/s 19 of the Consumer Protection
Act-86 against the impugned order dt. 19.4.10 passed by the
Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh in appeal No. 1589 of 07.
3. That the facts and the grounds of submission in the appeal Dt.
2.6.2010 are correct and genuine one.
DEPONENT
DECLARATION:
I, the above named deponent do hereby declare that the facts
and the grounds of submission in above affidavit are correct and true
to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been
concealed therein.
New Delhi
Date: June 10, 2010
DEPONENT
True copy
Petitioner
104
- 59 -
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO.
OF 2011
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
OF 2011
Baldev Singh...................Petitioner
VERSUS
Punjab Urban & Development Authority................Respondent
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND

ARGUE THE MATTER IN PERSON
TO
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED.

1. The petitioner is filing the present Special Leave Petition against
the final judgement and order dated 17.1.2011 passed by the
Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2217 of 2010.
2. The Petitioner craves leave of this Hon'ble Court that the
contents of the said Special Leave Petition may kindly be read
as part of this application and that the same are not repeated
herein for the sake of brevity.
3. That the petitioner is a Senior Citizen, and has personally filed
and argued the matter before the Hon'ble National Commission,
New Delhi. Therefore, the petitioner is filing and appearing in
person in the above matter.
PRAYER
In the premises it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to:
105
- 60 a) Allow me to appear and argue the above matter in person before

this Hon'ble court; and
b) Pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL
AS IS DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
Filed on: 19.4.2011
BALDEV SINGH
106
Appendix-III
ITEM NO. 66
COURT NO. 11
SECTION XVII
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(S) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(S). 13719/2011
(From the judgement and order dated 17/01/2011 in RP No. 2217/
2010 of the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, NEW DELHI)
Baldev Singh........................Petitioner(s)
Versus
Punjab Urban & Development Authority................Respondent(s)
(With appln(s). for permission to appear and argue in person and
prayer for interim relief)
Date: 04/07/2011
This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Baldev Singh
Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s)
Upon hearing counsel the court made the following
ORDER
Heard shri Baldev Singh, who has appeared in person and
perused the record.
In our view, the orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Punjab and National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission do not suffer from any legal infirmity
warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The
special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
(A.D. Sharma)
Court Master
(Phoolan Wati Arora)

Court Master
107
Appendix-IV
All Communications should

be
addressed
to
the
Registrar, Supreme Court by
designation, NOT by name.
Telegraphic
address:"SUPREMECO"
D.No. 2628/2011/XVII
SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA
NEW DELHI
Dated, the 7th July, 2011

From:- The Registrar,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
To,
The Registrar,
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Old Indian Oil Bhawan,
"B" Wing, 7th Floor, Janpath, New Delhi
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO. 13719 OF 2011
(Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India from the

Judgment and Order dated 17th January, 2011 of National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RP No. 2217/2010)
Baldev Singh
-Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Urban Development Authority
-Respondent
Sir,
I am directed to inform you that the Petition above mentioned
filed in the Supreme Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court on
04/07/2011.
Yours faithfully,
sd/For Registrar
Copy to:- Mr. Baldev Singh, Petitioner-in-person,
245, Urban Estate,
Kapurthala - 144 601
sd/FOR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
108
Appendix-V
OATH OF OFFICE OF SUPREME/HIGH

COURT JUDGE*
I.............having been appointed Chief Justice/Justice of
Supreme/High Court at or of...............do swear in the name of God/
Solemnly affirm, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
constitution of India as by law established, (that I will upload the
sovereignty and integrity of India) that I will duly and faithfully and
to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgement perform the duties
of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will that I will
uphold the constitution and the laws.
* Third Schedule of the Constitution of India.
109
Appendix-VI
HIGHER JUDICIARY GUILTY OF SEVEN SINS:

JUSTICE (RETD) RUMA PAL
MANEESH CHHIBBER
(Indian Express , 11.11.11)
NEW DELHI, NOV. 10
From hypocrisy and secrecy to arrogance, nepotism and
plagiarism, all bedevil the higher judiciary, said former Supreme Court
judge Justice Ruma Pal today in one of the most scathing indictments
of higher judiciary by one who has been part of it.
With sitting and retired judges of the Supreme Court and Delhi
High Court listening, Pal, delivering the fifth V M Tarkunde Memorial
lecture on "An Independent Judiciary," turned the searchlight inwards
in a manner few of her contemporaries have done.
Her key idea: independence of the judiciary and the judicial
system ultimately depends on the personal integrity of each judge.
With this as her back-drop, Pal went on to list the "sins" she said
were undermining the judiciary and threatening its independence.
The first sin, she said, was to brush things under the carpet, turning
a "Nelsonian eye" to "(the) injudicious conduct of a colleague.
Ironically, she said, judges are fierce in using the independence of
judiciary as a sword to take action in contempt against critics while
also using the same as a shield to cover a multitude of sins, some venal
and others not so venal.
Many judges are aware of the injudicious conduct of a
colleague, she said, but have either ignored it or refused to confront
the judge concerned and have suppressed any public discussion on
the issue often "through the great silencer- the law of Contempt," she
said.
The second sin: hypocrisy. "A favourite rather pompous phrase
in judgements is 'Be it ever so high, the law is above you' or words
to similar effect. And yet judges who enforce the law for others often
break that law with impunity. This includes traffic regulations and any
other regulation to which the 'ordinary' citizens are subject. Some, in
fact, get offended if their cars are held up by the police while
controlling the flow of traffic - the feeling of offence sometimes being
translated into action by issuance of a rule of contempt against the
hapless police constable all in the name of judicial independence," Pal
said.
110
The third sin, according to Pal, is secrecy. The normal response

of courts to any enquiry on their functioning, she said, is to "temporize,
stone-wall and prevaricate". She pointed out that the process by which
a judge is appointed to the High Court or elevated to the Supreme
Court is "one of the best kept secrets in the country."
She said if independence of judiciary is taken to mean "capable
of thinking for oneself," then the fourth sin of the judiciary is
plagiarism and prolixity. "I club the two together because the root
cause is often the same, namely the prolific and often unnecessary
use of passage from textbooks and decision of other judges - without
acknowledgement of in the first case and with acknowledgement in
the latter. Many judgements are, in fact, mere compendia or digests
of decisions on a particular issue with very little original reasoning
in support of the conclusion," she said.
Pal listed arrogance as the fifth sin, saying judges often
"misconstrue" independence as judicial and administrative indiscipline.
"Both of these in fact stem from judicial arrogance as to one's
intellectual ability and status. A judge's status like other holders of
public posts is derived from an office or the chair," she pointed out.
Pal said that while the SC had laid down standards of judicial
behaviour so that members of the subordinate judiciary are
"conscientious, studious, thorough, courteous, patient, punctual, just,
impartial, fearless of public clamour, regardless of public praise",
"sadly some members of the higher judiciary exempt themselves from
the need to comply with these standards".
She also listed intellectual arrogance or intellectual dishonesty
that is manifest when judges decide without being bound by principles
of "stare decisis" or "precedent" as another problem area.
The seventh and final sin, she said, is nepotism. "What is
required of a judge is a degree of aloofness and reclusiveness not only
vis--vis litigants include the Executive," she said. "Injudicious conduct
includes known examples such as judges using a guest house of a
private company or a public sector undertaking for a holiday or
accepting benefits like the allocation of land from the discretionary
quota of a Chief Minister. I can only emphasise that again nothing
destroys a judge's credibility more than a perception that he/she
decides according to closeness to one of the partiese to the litigation
or what has come to be described in the corridors of courts as 'face
value'."
111
Appendix-VII
KNOW THY LEADERS AND RULERS

l
"POWERS will go into the hands of rascals, rogues and freebooters.

Not a bottle of water or a leaf of bread will escape taxation. Only
the air will be free, and the blood of these hungry millions will be
on the head of Attlee (then P.M.). These are men of straw of whom
no trace will be found after a few years. They will fight among
themselves, and India will be lost in political squabbles."
Winston Churchill,
Former P.M. and Leader of Opposition, U.K. (1946)
"The Hindus have been kept down for centuries. We need fifty years
of association with the British to learn all they know. Let them raise
industries. Every thing will be ours one day."
(p. 235)
Sir Nripendra Sircar,
Advocate General, Bengal (1946)
"He (Mahatama Gandhi) was also deeply concerned about the rot
that was setting into the Congress Party. He had received
information that some Congress legislators were taking money
from businessmen to get them licenses, that they were indulging
in black-marketing and subverting the judiciary and intimidating
top officials to secure transfers and promotions for their proteges
in the administration."
(p. 276)
Durga Das, Sr. Journalist and Editor.
INDIA from Curzon to Nehru and After
"Nehru asked me to privately discuss with them the question of

finally disposing of the various scandals in which Krishna Menon
was involved."
(p. 175)
M.O. Mathai, Spl. Assistant to Nehru,
Reminiscences of the Nehru Age
"As Nehru lost confidence in the political integrity of Baldev Singh,

Swarn Singh was pulled out of the Punjab Government in 1952
and inducted into the Union Government as a Cabinet Minister."
(p. 238)
M.O. Mathai, Spl. Assistant to Nehru,

Reminiscences of the Nehru Age

Repeated Rape of Justice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Repeated Rape of Justice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

Other books by the same Author :

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

Difficulties break some men but make others.

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com