BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; AMBALA. C.C.No.357/2016. Date of Instt.: 16.09.2016. Date of Decision: 02.01.2018. Veena Rani widow of Shri Sunder Lal Shop No.5, Luxman Bagichi Mandir, Ram Bagh Road, Ambala Cantt. (Mobile No.09017387722) ..Complainant Versus 1.Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority(HUDA), cum SDM, Ambala near Glaxy Mall, City Ambala. 2.The Chief Administrator HUDA,-3 Sector 6, Panchkula (Enforcement Wing). 3.State of Haryana through its Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh. ...Opposite Parties CORAM: SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT MS. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER Present: Sh.Gaurav Rajput, counsel for the complainant. Sh.Arvind Goel, counsel for the OP Nos.1 & 2. OP No.3 exparte. ORDER The complainant has brought the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, called, the Act) with the averments that she is a widow and belongs to BPL family. She had deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- with the OPs as they had told for providing of a house but even after elapsing about 7 years they neither allot the house nor gave the possession thereof despite the fact that a policy was formulated by the Op Nos. 1 to 3 duly circulated vide No.Enf.Br.2009/5887-5709 dated 10.02.2010 wherein the norms and eligibility of the beneficiary for the allotment of low cost dwelling units contracted by HUDA in various urban Estate had been fixed by the OP Nos.1 & 2 under the supervision of OP No.3. There were 1640 plots and the same were made for only poor and needy persons and at the time of publications of the above said plots the OPs had published that BPL families, poor and needy persons can apply for the same, therefore, the complainant had applied for the flat by depositing an amount of Rs.10,000/- with the OPs vide application No.1226 on 04.06.2010. In the year 2013 some of the effected persons were called, therefore, the complainant had sought information under RTI and came to know that 1351 persons had applied for the flats but it was not complete information as no date, month and year was disclosed for giving the plots to BPL families. It has been informed to the complainant that now 1341 applications of BPL category and 31 applicants have been refunded on the request of the applicants and balance 1310 applications of BPL category are pending. The scheme was again advertised on 12.02.2015 and closed on 11.03.2015 and against which 306 applications were received. After the scrutiny of above applications and verification of BPL candidates, the allotment of low cost dwelling units could be done accordingly. The houses are ready and constructed but not allotted by the OPs and they are using the valued hard earned money till date. 2. On notice OP Nos. 1 & 2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing their joint reply wherein it has taken many preliminary objections such as mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, jurisdiction of this Forum and time barred etc. The complaint of the complainant is pre-mature because as per memo No.Enf Br.2009/5687-5709 dated 10.02.2010 Ist preference for the allotment of low cost dwelling unit has to be given to the petitioners in CWP No.11637 of 1996 and other Jhuggi/ Jhopri colonies in the respective Urban Estates who are unauthoirizingly occupying the land of HUDA for the last more than 5 years as on 19.04.1999 i.e. the date of order of the Hon?ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Second preference would be given to those inhabitants/occupants who are unauthorizedly occupying the land of HUDA for the last more than 5 years as on 03.04.2008. Third preference would be given to those inhabitants/occupants who are occupying unauthorizingly the Govt./Govt.agency land as on 01.04.2003 and thereafter the priority would be given to the unauthorized occupants who encroached the HUDA/Government/ Government Agency land which affect the essential services like roads water supply, sewerage, bridges etc. Thereafter the left out dwelling units would be allotted to the eligible applicant of BPL as recommended by DUDA after taking application from DUDA. The BPL applicants are eligible on 5th number and more so they are eligible for left out dwelling units are full allotment to the eligible persons stand at Sr.No.1 to 4 as per policy in question. The complaint is not maintainable being filed after concealing the material facts. The process for allotment of dwelling units as per scheme is in process and possession of 200 units were handed-over to the eligible persons of category No.1 to 4 as per scheme. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. OP No.3 did not appear before this Forum, therefore, it was proceeded against exparate vide order dated 07.11.2016. 3. Before going further it is desirable to decide issue whether the present complaint is maintainable or not? Undisputedly, the complainant belongs to BPL category and it is also not disputed that a scheme was launched by the Government for allotting the houses to the poor and needy persons but the OP Nos. 1 & 2 in their reply have specifically taken a plea that the complainant falls within the category of 5th number and this fact is evident from the letter No. Enf Br.2009/5687-5709 dated 10.02.2010 issued by Chief Administrator, HUDA Panchkula to All the Zonal Administrators, HUDA and All the Estate Officers of HUDA. It is settled principle of law that if government makes any policy then the same has to be followed step by step and there is no scope of bye-passing the rules and regulations. But the complainant under the garb of this complaint wants a plot after bye-passing the categories No.1 to 4 which comes earlier to BPL families. Moreover, the complainant who is placed at category No.5 has not placed on file any record to show that the OPs have ever wished to allot/ allotted any plot to any BPL family under this scheme without deciding the application filed by the complainant. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 have specifically mentioned in para No.6 of the reply that the process of allotment of dwelling units as per scheme is in process and possession of 200 units were handed over to the eligible persons of category No.1 to.4 as per scheme. The complainant has not placed any document on the case file to show that on which date the claim for the allotment of plot allegedly lodged by her was refused by the OPs. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is not maintainable being pre-mature, hence, we dispose of this complaint with liberty to the complainant to submit representation with the OPs and the Ops are hereby directed to decide the same as per terms and conditions of the scheme. In case the complainant is aggrieved with the decision to be taken by the OPs, in that eventuality he may file a fresh complaint against the decision of the Ops. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. ANNOUNCED ON: 02.01.2018 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR) (ANAMIKA GUPTA) (D.N.ARORA) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT