In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India set aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that had directed the Indore Development Authority (IDA) to accept overdue payments and transfer possession of a plot to an allottee after a delay of nearly three decades. The bench, comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, held that final relief cannot be granted by way of interim orders and reaffirmed the principle that procedural regularity must be maintained in public dealings.
Case Background
The dispute dates back to 1994, when the IDA issued a tender under Scheme No. 54 for the allotment of plots to the public. Dr. Hemant Mandovra, the respondent, was allotted Plot No. 314 in January 1995 with a payment plan requiring him to deposit 50% of the premium upfront and the remaining amount in 12 quarterly installments. While he paid the initial amount, his failure to pay subsequent installments led to the cancellation of the allotment in 2000.
Dr. Mandovra challenged the cancellation in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which restored the allotment in 2006 on the condition that he paid the outstanding dues within 30 days. However, the respondent submitted only a partial payment, and further disputes arose over the calculation of interest. This led to a series of litigations before the District Consumer Forum, the State Consumer Commission, and finally, the NCDRC.
In March 2023, the NCDRC directed the IDA to calculate the interest on the dues, accept the respondent’s payment, and hand over possession of the plot. Aggrieved by this decision, the IDA approached the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
1. Whether the State Consumer Commission was justified in granting final relief via an interim order.
2. Whether the NCDRC’s order to hand over possession of the plot after 28 years was valid in light of the respondent’s repeated non-compliance.
3. Whether the respondent’s grievance could be adequately addressed under the Consumer Protection Act framework.
Supreme Court Observations
In its detailed judgment, the Supreme Court dismantled the orders of both the State Consumer Commission and the NCDRC, criticizing their overreach and misapplication of interim relief mechanisms.
On Interim Relief:
The Court held that granting final relief through an interim order was a procedural anomaly. It stated, “Final relief cannot be granted by way of interim orders, especially when the matter involves complex financial and legal obligations. The State Consumer Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in this regard.”
On the Delay:
Justice Sharma noted, “The respondent was in default and failed to comply with payment obligations even after being granted multiple opportunities and concessions. After a lapse of 28 years, no such order to accept payment can be sustained.”
On Public Accountability:
The bench emphasized that public resources, such as plots managed by a development authority, cannot be subjected to indefinite delays or undue favors. It directed the IDA to issue a fresh tender for the plot, ensuring transparency and compliance with statutory rules.
Outcome
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the State Consumer Commission dated December 15, 2017, and the NCDRC order dated March 29, 2023. It ruled that the respondent, Dr. Mandovra, no longer had any claim over the plot due to his failure to meet the terms of the allotment and subsequent court directives.
The IDA was instructed to auction the plot through a fresh tender process, putting an end to the decades-long litigation.
