Writ Petition / Land Looser / Employment / Exempted Category / Pradip Kumar Mondal

 

DISTRICT : SOUTH 24 PARAGANAS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

 

W.P.A NO.                      OF 2023

 

In the matter of:

An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

 

-And –

 

In the matter of:

Pradip Kumar Mondal, Son of Sri Chittaranjan Mondal, aged about 27 years, residing at Village – Chandipur, Post Office – Kundarali, Police Station – Baruipur, Pin 743610, District – South 24 Parganas, Mobile No : 8420390817.

                             .........Petitioner

 

-Versus-

 

1.   The State of West Bengal, Department of Land and Land Reform, service through the Secretary, having its office at Nabanna (6^th Floor), 325, Sarat Chatterjee Road, Shibpur, Howrah, Pin – 711102.

 

2.   Collector, Land Acquisition Department, having its Office at New Treasury Building, 5^th Floor, South 24 Parganas (South) Alipore, Kolkata – 700027.

 

3.   District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), South 24 Parganas, Office of the Collector, South 24 Parganas, Land Acqisition Department, New Treasury Building, 5^th Floor, Alipore, Kolkata – 700027.

 

4.   Additional Land Acquisition Officer, South 24 Parganas, Office of the Collector, South 24 Parganas, Land Acquisition Department, New Treasury Building, 5^th Floor, Alipore, Kolkata – 700027.

 

5.   Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), South 24 Parganas, Office of the Collector, South 24 Parganas, Land Acqisition Department, New Treasury Building, 5^th Floor, Alipore, Kolkata – 700027, Ph. No. 2448-3945/46, Fax No. 2479-0182, Email : spllaos24pgs@gmail.com

 

6.   Special Land Acquisition Officer, South 24 Parganas, Land Acquisition Department, New Treasury Building, 5^th Floor, Alipore, Kolkata – 700027.

 

7.   The Block Development Officer, B.D.O. Road, Fultala, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata - 700144.

 

8.   Sub-Divisional Officer, Baruipur, Zilla Parishad Building, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700144, Tel. No. 033 2433-1081/8579 (F), Email : baruipur.sdo@gmail.com

 

9.   The Block Land & Land Reform Officer, Fultala, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata - 700144.

 

10.        Sabhapati, Baruipur Panchayat Samity, Fultala, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700144.

 

11.        Prodhan, Kalayanpur Gram Panchayat, Dhopagachhi, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700145.

 

12.        Kalayanpur Gram Panchayat, Baruipur, Dhopagachhi, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700145.

 

13.        Joint Director, Directorate of Employment, Government of West Bengal, having its Office 67, Bentick Street, 4^th Floor, Kolkata 700069.

 

14.        The Deputy Director of Employment, Exmpted Category Cell, Directorate of Employment, West Bengal, having its Office 67, Bentick Street, 3^rd Floor, Kolkata 700069.

                             ____Respondents

 

15.        Sri Bikash Mondal, Son of Late Santosh Kumar Mondal, residing at Village & Post Office – Malekanghumti, Police Station – Hingalgaunge, District North 24 Parganas, Pin – 743439.

             .........Private Respondents

 

To

The Hon’ble Prakash Shrivastava, Chief Justice and His Companion Justices of the Said Hon’ble Court.

The Humble petition of the petitioner above named –

Most Respectfully Sheweth:-

 

1.   That the Petitioner is a Citizen of India and has been residing at the address given in the cause title of this application.

 

2.   That father of the petitioner Chittaranjan Mondal, was owner in respect of 83 Decimal of land under Mouza – Chandipur, J.L. No. 46, Khatian Number 1073, Dag Number 531 & 532, Police Station – Baruipur, District – South 24 Parganas, and 22 decimal land under Mouza – Chakarber, J.L. No. 48, Khatian Number 1175, Dag Number 22, Police Station – Baruipur, District – South 24 Parganas.

 

Photostat Copy of the Record of Right of father of the Petitioner Chittaranjan Mondal, is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – “P-1”.

 

3.   That for the Public purpose by initiating LA Case no. 4/52 of 2006-07, the concerned respondent acquired certain property in the concerned area. Property of father of the Petitioner also fall in the said acquisition proceeding.

 

4.   That pursuant to the said acquisition proceeding, compensation has been paid and according to the policy decision of the State one member of the family of the Land Looser is supposed to get an appointment in Government Service under Exempted Category.

 

Photostat Copy of such Notification on Payment and Employment are Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – “P-2”, Collectively.

 

5.   That the petitioner is a son of Land Looser, applied for appointment under Exempted Category. He was asked to enroll before the Labour Department under Exempted Category. He given his credential

 

Photostat Copies of the said application and his credential are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – “P-3”.

 

6.   That the concerned respondent has proceeded with the case of the petitioner, but ultimately has not been provided appointment.

 

Photostat copies of the steps taken by the concerned respondent are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – “P-4”, Collectively.

 

7.   That the Private Respondent being similarly situated as that of the Petitioner has already provided with appointment under Land Looser Scheme.

 

Photostat copy of the document in proof of the appointment of the private respondent is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – “P-5”, Collectively.

 

8.   That the concerned respondent has issued a Certificate stating that the name of the Petitioner has been forwarded for enrollment in the Exempted Category.

 

9.   That the Petitioner has made several representations for getting appointment but he has not been provided with the same.

 

Photostat copy of representations of the petitioner are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – “P-6”, Collectively.

 

10.                That the Petitioner states and submits that the concerned respondent cannot make any discrimination in getting appointment under Land Looser Scheme. The Private Respondent although similarly situated has been enjoying service, while the petitioner, has not been provided appointment.

 

11.                That the Petitioner states and submits that the respondent authorities cannot apply pick and choose option under specific scheme, while offering appointment to a member of family effected by land acquisition has been promised.

 

12.                That the Petitioner states and submits that delay in offering appointment is a shift of the promise, which a Government cannot do.

 

13.                That the Petitioner states and submits that a progressive Government cannot make any dilatory tactics in executing its’ promise.

 

14.                That the Petitioner states and submits that to look after the welfare of its Citizen is the primarily duty of the State which the respondents are intentionally denying. As such the respondents are obliged to follow the scheme.

 

15.                That the Petitioner states and submits that offering appointment to a member of Land Looser family is a precondition of acquisition. In absence of fulfilling such condition warrants the acquisition proceeding.

 

16.                Your petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the action on the part of the respondent concerned begs to move the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the following amongst other:-

 

GROUNDS

 

I.             For that the concerned respondent cannot make any discrimination in getting appointment under Land Looser Scheme. The Private Respondent although similarly situated has been enjoying service, while the petitioner, has not been provided appointment;

 

II.           For that the respondent authorities cannot apply pick and choose option under specific scheme, while offering appointment to a member of family effected by land acquisition has been promised;

 

III.          For that the delay in offering appointment is a shift of the promise, which a Government cannot do;

 

IV.         For that a progressive Government cannot make any dilatory tactics in executing its’ promise;

 

V.           For that to look after the welfare of its Citizen is the primarily duty of the State which the respondents are intentionally denying. As such the respondents are obliged to follow the scheme;

 

VI.         For that offering appointment to a member of Land Looser family is a precondition of acquisition. In absence of fulfilling such condition warrants the acquisition proceeding;

 

17.                Your petitioner states that the records of the instant case are lying outside the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

 

18.                Your petitioner humbly submits that there is no other remedy available to his and the prayers as made herein, if allow shall redress the petitioner’s grievances effectively.

 

19.                Your petitioner states that due to paucity of time some facts may not have been incorporated and your petitioner craves leave to file supplementary affidavit and your petitioner further crave leave to produce and refer to relevant papers/ documents at the time of hearing by way of filling a supplementary affidavit.

 

20.                That this application is made bona fide and in the interest of justice.

In the circumstances the petitioner most humbly prays before the Hon’ble Court that Your lordships’ would graciously be pleased to pass the following orders:-

 

a)    A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities their men, agents and subordinates to give appointment immediately to the petitioner under exempted category for Loosing Land in LA Case no. 4/52 of 2006-07;

 

b)   A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities their men, agents and subordinates to give compensation to the petitioner for delayed period in giving appointment;

 

c)    A writ in the nature of Certiorari asking the respondent authorities to produce records related to the instant case before the Hon’ble Court for proper adjudication;

 

d)   Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a) & (b) above.

 

e)    An appropriate order directing the respondent authorities to file a report in this regard before the Hon’ble Court.

 

f)     Such other or further order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.

 

And the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AFFIDAVIT

 

I Pradip Kumar Mondal, Son of Sri Chittaranjan Mondal, aged about 27 years, by faith Hindu, by Occupation unemployed, residing at Village – Chandipur, Post Office – Kundarali, Police Station – Baruipur, Pin 743610, District – South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:

 

1.       That I am the petitioner of this application and I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

 

2. That the statements made in paragraph No. 1, 2, 5, 8, & 9, are true to my knowledge and those made in paragraphs   3, 4, 6, & 7, are true to my information derived from the records of the case and rest paragraphs are my respectful submission before this Hon’ble Court.

 

 

Prepared in my office                           The deponent is known to me

 

                 Advocate                 Clerk to Mr. Sanjib Bandyopadhyay                                                                                                  Advocate

Solemnly affirmed before me

on this the       day of February, 2023.

 

I certify that all annexures

are legible.

 

               Advocate.

COMMISSIONER

 

DISTRICT :South 24 Parganas.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

 

W.P.A. No.                      of 2023;

 

In the matter of:

An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

And

In the matter of:

Pradip Kumar Mondal

………..Petitioner

-Versus-

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

……Respondents

 

 

WRIT PETITION

 

MR. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH

Advocate

Bar Association, Room No.15,

High Court, Calcutta.

(M) 9883070666.

Email : aksinghadvocate@rediffmail.com   

Enrollment No. : F/872/2000

 

Questionnaire by the opposite party in consumer case / consumer case / consumer

 

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLKATA UNIT-III

Tramline Building ( 1^st Floor )

18, Judges Court Road, Alipore, Kolkata - 700027

 

 

 

Consumer Case no. CC/85/2020

 

 

In the matter of:

Smt. Gita Chanda,

 

....Complainant

 

      -versus-

 

1.   M/s. Sree Ram Builders

           ... Opposite Party

 

 

QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

 

The followings are the questions by the Opposite Party Soumen Chakraborty, to the Consumer Complainants;

 

Questions ;

 

Question no. 1      What is your educational qualification and  occupation ?

 

Question no. 2      This is true that you and your Sister Anjali Karmakar are co-owners of the property at premises No. 40/15/1, Manick Bandyopadhyay Sarani, ( presently known as Moore Avenue), Kolkata – 700040, and both of you consented for construction of a building on your plot of land by the opposite party, herein. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 3      This is true that you Sister Anjali Karmakar did not consent to institute the present consumer complaint against this opposite party. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 4      Did your Sister Anjali Karmakar is a Complainant in the present Consumer Complaint, against the Opposite Party ?

 

Question no. 5      Did your Sister Anjali Karmakar is a proforma opposite party in the present consumer complaint lodge by you against this opposite party ?

 

Question no. 6      Did you ever aver anywhere in your petition of consumer complaint as well as in your Evidence on Affidavit, that your Sister Anjali Karmakar has consented to institute the present consumer complaint against this opposite party ?

 

Question no. 7      This is true that an Agreement between Smt. Anjali Karmakar & Smt Gita Chanda, and the Respondent M/s. Sree Ram Builders, represented by its Proprietor Shri Ratan Kumar Banerjee, has been entered for the Construction and development of schedule property ALL THAT piece and parcel of 4(four) Cottahas 10 (ten) Chhitacks and 4(four) Sq. ft. together with Kuncha structure comprised in Mouza – Shibpur, JL no. 42, Khatian No. 176, Dag No. 244, Touji No. 151, Within the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Ward no. 97, and known and numbered as Municipal Premises No. 40/15/1, Manick Bandyopadhyay Sarani, now Moore Avenue, Police Station – Regent Park, Kolkata – 700040, District – South 24 Parganas. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 8      This is true that the Owners being Smt. Gita Chanda and Smt. Anjali Karmakar, executed and granted a General Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Ratan Kumar Banerjee, Prop. Of Ms. Sree Ram Builders, in terms of the Agreement dated 24-07-2005, for ensuing the Development Work on the schedule property. Say yes or no describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 9      This is true that The Agreement dated 24-07-2005, contained the following covenants :

a)    At page number – 4 – 9 OWNERS’ ALLOCATION : shall mean on completion of the new proposed building the owners herein shall be entitled to get all that three self contained habitable flats out of which (i) one flat no. GB in the Ground Floor measuring 500 Sq. ft. built up area be the same or little more or less, (ii) another flat no. 1B in the First Floor measuring 500 Sq. ft. built up area be the or little more or less, and (iii) another flat no. 2B, in the Second Floor measuring 500 Sq. ft. built up area be the same or little more or less to be constructed as per sanctioned building plan, which is to be renewed from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation as per present building rules in respect of premises no. 40/15/1, Manick Bandyopadhyay Sarani, formerly Moore Avenue, Police Station – Regent Park, Kolkata – 700 040, the particulars of such entirety of land and premises is more fully described in the FIRST SCHEDULE hereunder written along with proportionate share of land attributable to the said constructional areas with common facilities, civic amenities as to provided in the said building and to constructed as per specification given in the SECOND SCHEDULE hereunder written, as part of the total consideration for the said land and premises.

b)   At page number – 5 – 10 – CONSIDERATION : shall mean apart from the aforesaid constructed habitable areas mentioned hereinabove as Owner’s allocation the developer shall also pay to the Owners a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rupees Five Lakhs ) only, as part of total consideration of the said land and premises. Out of such Rs. 5,00,000/- the developer already paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as per memo of consideration appended below and the Owners hereby acknowledged the same and the balance sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- shall be payable on easy installment but within the stipulated period as hereinabove mentioned.

Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 10    This is true that one Misc. Case no. 323 of 2006 { Smt. Anjali Karmakar & Others } has been instituted by the Owners being Smt. Gita Chanda and Smt. Anjali Karmakar, before the Learned District Judge, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, being an application under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act. Say yes or no, describe your answer, in details, if any.

Question no. 11    This is true that Order dated 10-07-2008, passed by the Learned District Judge, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, in Misc. Case no. 323 of 2006, has come in the year 2008. Say yes or no, describe your answer, in details, if any.

Question no. 12    This is true that one Supplementary Agreement between the Owners and the Developer entered in continuation of the Agreement dated 24-07-2005, and thereby modified the contents of Owners allocation and considerations, which are as follows :

a)    At page number – 4 – 3 – OWNER’S ALLOCATION : shall mean on completion of the new proposed building the Owners herein shall be entitled to get all that two self contained habitable flats out of which (i) one Flat no. 2B in the Second Floor on western portion of the Building measuring 500 Sq. ft. built up area be the same or little more or less and (iii) another Flat no. 3B in the Third Floor on western portion of the building measuring 500 Sq. ft. built up area be the same or little more or less to be constructed as per sanctioned building plan at premises no. 40/15/1, Manick Bandyopadhyay Sarani, formerly Moore Avenue, Police Station – Regent Park, Kolkata – 700 040, the particulars of such entirety of land and premises is more fully described in the FIRST SCHEDULE hereunder written along with proportionate share of land attributable to the said constructional areas with common facilities, civic amenities as to provided in the said building and to constructed as per specification given in the SECOND SCHEDULE hereunder written, as part of the total consideration for the said land and premises.

b)   At page number – 5 – 4 – CONSIDERATION : shall mean apart from the aforesaid two flats as mentioned hereinabove as Owners’ allocation the Developer shall also pay to the Owners a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- ( Rupees Nine Lakhs ) only as part of total consideration of the said land and premises, out of such Rs. 9,00,000/- ( Rupees Nine Lakhs ) only, the Developer already paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rupees Five Lakhs ) only to the Owners and the balance sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- ( Rupees Four Lakhs ) only, shall be payable by the Developer to the Owners on easy installment on or before handing over possession of Owner’s allocation to the Owners

Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 13    This is true that on 30-09-2011, The Completion Certificate for Completion of Building Premises, issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Say yes or no, describe your answer, in details, if any.

 

Question no. 14    This is true that on 08-10-2011, The Physical Possession of the Owners allocation has been given by the Developer, and Since, then the Owners are enjoying uninterruptedly. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 15    This is true that    Smt. Gita Chanda and Smt. Anjali Karmakar, entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 23-07-2014, with one Kishore Chanda, Son of Late Rakhal Chanda, of 2/8, Bidhysagar Colony, also of 13, Bidhyasagar Colony, P.S. Patuli, Kolkata – 700086, for Sale of piece and parcel of 620 sq. ft. more or less super built up area of a self-contained flat at the ground floor of the G+3 storied building standing over 4 Cottahas 10 Chhitacks 23 sq. ft. more or less at Dag No. 244, Khatian No. 176, JL No. 42, Touzi No. 151, Mouza – Shibpur, PS. – Regent Park, also known as 40/15/1, Manik Bondyopadhyay Sarani, under KMC Ward no. 97, Kolkata – 700040, against the consideration money as of Rs. 7,50,000/- ( Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand ) only. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

Question no. 16    This is true that One Consumer Complaint has been instituted by Kishore Chanda, Son of Late Rakhal Chanda, of 2/8, Bidhysagar Colony, also of 13, Bidhyasagar Colony, P.S. Patuli, Kolkata – 700086, against Smt. Gita Chanda and Smt. Anjali Karmakar, for enforcement of the said Agreement for Sale dated 23-07-2014, vide Consumer Complaint Case no. 568 of 2014, before the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

Question no. 17    This is true that Judgment dated 31-07-2005, passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in CC/568/2014, the operative portion hereby furnished : “Both the O.Ps are jointly and / or severally directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant in respect of the flat in question. Both the O.Ps are jointly and / or severally directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- ( Rupees tHree Thousand only ) as litigation cost to the complainant. All the orders should be complied with within 30 days from this date, failing which all the O.Ps are jointly and / or severally directed to pay Rs. 100/- per diem to the complainant after the stipulated period till full compliance”. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 18    This is true that on 30-11-2016, the respondent,  being constituted attorney of the petitioner and her co-sharer came accosted with an event that some police personnel with one Learned Advocate and one Kishore Chanda, visited the premises and break the pad lock of one vacant flat of the owner’s allocation thereof and at the Ground floor of the premises being no. 40/15/1, Manik Bandyopadhyay Sarani, formerly Moore Avenue, Kolkata – 700 040, under the Ward no. 97 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, and acknowledge about one Execution proceeding being no. EA/14/2016, titled as { Kishore Chanda – Versus – Anjali Karmakar and another }, and thus the respondent, came into knowledge of the said Consumer proceeding. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 19    This is true that    appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986, has been numbered  as A/1172/2016, titled as { Smt. Anjali Karmakar and another – Versus Kishore Chanda }, and whereas the delay application as well as the said appeal upon necessary hearing, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal resulting dismissal of appeal, vide order 15^th day of May’ 2017. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 20    This is true that on 19-07-2016, Deed of Conveyance by Sujata Ghosh Ld. Advocate as the Commissioner and machinery of the Forum on behalf of the said Anjali Karmakar and Gita Chanda, regfistered in favour of Kishorer Chanda, registered in Book no. I, Volume No. 1601-2016, pages from 70659 to 70698 Being No. 160102384, for the year 2016. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 21    This is true that the Said Kishore Chanda sold to one Jaganmay Mondal, vide registered in Book no. I, Volume Number 1601-2017, Pages from 50923 to 50968, Being number 160101712 for the year 2017. Say yes or, describe your answer, in details, if any.

 

Question no. 22    This is true that the present Consumer Complaint suffering from the followings. Says yes or no, describe your answerin details, if any :

                             a) Suppression of the material facts;

                             b) Non joiner of the Party;

                             c) Barred by the Limitation;

                             d) Wrongful Claim;

                             e) Complainant is not a Consumer;

                             f) Disputes as referred is not a Consumer Disputes;

                             g) No Cause of Action has ever bee accrued;

                             h) Vague and Frivolous Application;

 

Question no. 23    This is true that the Complainant is an Income Tax Assessee, Say Yes or No, describe your answer in details if any.

Question no. 24    This is true that the contents and purports of agreement entered are binding on you. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 25    This is true that you did not answer on the facts given in the written version. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 26    This is true that you are residing in the flat at the premises, since delivery of possession. Say yes or no describe your answer, in details, if any.

 

Question no. 27    This is true that the said given flat has more area in measurement and big one than of the agreed one, in the agreement with this opposite party. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 28    Do you have any objection, if this opposite party placed an application for appointment of Survey Passed Engineer Commissioner for ascertainment of actual measurement of the flat, in which you reside at the premises ?

 

Question no. 29    This is true that you do not have any locus standi to lodge this present consumer complaint against this opposite party. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 30    This is true that the delivery of possession of the said flats in terms of the agreement has already been occurred, immediately on completion of the building and you are residing in the said flat. Say yes or no, describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 31    This is true that the said Flat has duly been mutated in your name, in the record of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Say yes or no describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 32    Do you gone through the contents & purports of the Written Version submitted by this Opposite Party ?

 

Question no. 33    This is true that the disputes referred by you in your petition of consumer complaint is not a Consumer Disputes as meant for in the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019, Say yes or no describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 34    This is true that you are not a Consumer as meant for in the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019, say yes or no describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 35    This is true that you have placed the concocted story in your petition of consumer complaint to in-clinch issues in your favour, Say yes or no, describe your answer, in details if any.

 

Question no. 36    This is true that your consumer complaint has prepared with oblique motive. Say yes or no describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 37    This is true that the contents are same in your petition of consumer complaint and in your evidence on affidavit. Say yes or no describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 38    This is true that this opposite party have no disputes with the complainant, as complainant     alleged in her concocted consumer complaint. Say yes or no, describe your answers in details, if any.

 

Question no. 39    This is true that there is no cause of action has ever been accrued to resort in the present consumer complaint proceeding before the Hon’ble District Commission, Say yes or no describe your answer in details if any.

 

Question no. 40    This is true that this opposite party did not cause any deficiency in services, as meant for in the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019. Say yes or no describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 41    This is true that the Complainant is not Consumer, as meant for in the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019. Say yes or no describe your answer in details, if any.

 

Question no. 42    This is true that you are not entitled to get any relief as prayed. Say yes or no describe your answer in details, if any.

 

___________________________________XXX__________________________