IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.7767 of 2010 Date of decision April 30 , 2010 Indu Chawla and others ....... Petitioners Versus The Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector 6, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator and another. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Ashish Aggarwal , Advocate for the petitioners. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition seeks for a direction to hand over possession of the plot which had been allotted to the petitioner in the year 2000. It is a case where the petitioners had already approached the Consumer Forum for not delivering the property and complaining that the amount had been received but development of the plot had not taken place. The Consumer Forum had granted to the petitioners the relief of refund of the amount which they had paid. HUDA had preferred an appeal to the State Commissioner which reduced the amount to be paid to the petitioners and did not grant to the petitioners an allotment of the plot itself. The petitioners were aggrieved by the decision of the State Commission and one of them preferred a revision to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and suffered an order on 11.2.2010 when the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed as follows:- “In this revision, the petitioner alleges that she is interested in retaining the plot and the orders passed by fora below, may/therefore be set aside. Having heard Shri Dhingra on admission, we are of the view that petitioner cannot turn around and seek setting aside of the two orders on the ground that as the site has now been developed, she is interested to retain it. Revision is totally misconceived and is dismissed as such.” 2. After the petitioners' plea for allotment of the plot was rejected even by the National Commission as wholly misconceived, the petitioners are again before this Court seeking for allotment of the plot on the ground that now the development of plots have taken place and there are other persons who have obtained allotment of plots. It is a simple case of estopple operating against a person who at some point of time found development had not taken place and had expressed to be satisfied with receiving the amount which she had paid, comes up subsequently when a relief is granted only for return of the money that she should be granted the allotment of the plot itself. If that plea had been rejected by a National Consumer Commission, a decision taken in such a forum will bind the petitioners as against the respondents. The principle of res judicata in such a case will operate although res judicata itself may not be applied proprio vigore for a decision in a National Commission and jurisdiction of the High Court in a writ petition operate in different fields. After the National Commission had rejected the claim for the very same relief, the petitioners cannot duplicate the same remedy by another writ petition. The writ petition is wholly vexatious and is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 30, 2010 archana