As a flat owner had written appreciation letter 25/8/2005 and 13/1/2007 about the consumer case filed against the builder to the association. But, it was surprising to us in the month of June 2010; (a year after pronouncement of orders dt: 6/7/09 by the A P State Consumer Commission, Hyderabad in favour of all the flat owners) same flat owner and as the present President of our Association wrote a letter containing a mixture of true and false information to the builder.
The builder utilized the opportunity and filed a false case under IPC sections – 419, 420, 469, 448 506 & 34 in the local court against me and another flat owner. Later, concerned police station had file FIR. Due to the section 420, we were forced go for an Anticipatory Bail plea. The local court awarded us the bail.
In the bail order it was also observed that, if we had cheated the builder the issue should have been brought before the Consumer Commission and the commission who have given appropriate orders. The investigation is on and charge sheet is not filed. But, we have filed our evidences in support of our denial of the false allegations to the investigating officer.
Evidences were related to the following:
1. Myself or the other flat owner named in the FIR has not cheated the builder, courts or the flat owners. Basing on the authorization given by the flat owners’ and after necessary resolution the case was filed on 19/1/2006 before the A P State Consumer Commission by then (other flat owner) Secretary.
2. The A P State Consumer Commission was duly informed about the change in Secretary on the day of hearing (myself) on 14/6/2006 through a Memo.
3. The other flat owner had held various posts in the association committee since its inception and has been Secretary of the Association from June 2004 to Feb 2006 for a brief period in the Care Taker Committee and never held the post of the President at any time as mentioned in the complaint.
4. Myself held the Post of Secretary between March 2006 and Jan 2007. It’s true that, he submitted his resignation on 24/1/2007 due to personal reasons. Whether the resignation was rejected or accepted is known to then committee members. There was no mention about the resignation of him from the post of the Secretary in the Annual Report dt: 18/2/2007 presented to the flat owners by them outgoing President. But, the same person himself in March 2007 formed a Care Taker Committee against the provisions of the byelaws of the association.
5. At no point of time, between Jan 2007 and March 2009 no letter was sent to me or to the other flat owner or all the flat owners either by post or hand about the removal matter from post which they held by the association.
6. With related to the accusation that, even after resigning (myself) continued to handle the case before the A P State Commission – it is due to the failure of the Care Taker Committee which run the affairs of the association between March 2007 and Feb 2009 to a pass necessary resolution about the change in person of the Secretary and inform the State Commission through the Standing Counsel, myself as one of the complainant in the case was forced to handle the case till the pronouncement of the orders. Necessary affidavit was filed by me before the State Commission as one of the complainant to handle the case in Jan. 2008.
7. As per the records of the association all relevant papers, files and books etc received from me were handed to the other flat owner - Secretary of Care Taker Committee on 7/3/2007 by then Joint Secretary in the presence of two outgoing committee members. Later between 9/3/07 & 18/3/07 relevant papers, files and books etc were taken by the care committee president and treasurer from the Secretary.
8. With related to demand of Rs. 2 Lakhs and visiting the office, etc – is totally false allegation against us. No learned person and law abiding citizens will commit such an act which will spoil on going legal process for justice. An Execution Application is pending before the State Commission as well as an appeal made by the builder before the National Commission. The other flat owner who is a Government Servant (duty hrs 10am to 5pm) was in his office and myself was at my residence on the date and time mention in the complaint. This fact most of us are aware of it.
9. The present President of the association can only explain the circumstances under which he was forced to issue a letter with true and false information against a present Joint Secretary and a member of the association, without consulting the executive committee members and other resident flat owners that too after accepting Rs. 15,000/- from the builder which was awarded for the travel and allied expenses for the respondents by the National Consumer Commission to appear before them on 8/9/2010.
10. As the present President of the association he was first reluctant to receive the draft of Rs. 15,000/- from the builder awarded by the National Consumer Commission. But, later on 19/6/2010 received it without the knowledge of all the respondents in the case and asked them to collect the amount on 18/7/2010. As of now the amount awarded by the National Commission is with the association and none of the respondents have taken the same from the President. Basing on the letter issued on behalf of the association the builder took advantage of it, filed a false case against them to scuttle the legal process and to defame and harass them. This has naturally created insecurity among the other respondents. A forced compromise is in process which is not at all beneficial to the flat owners.
The present President is the man behind for filing two Writ Petitions 5029 and 15017 in 2008 against the builder in the High Court for regularization, fire safety etc. The Secretary of the United Central Association and other block members were named in the cases. Except the office bearers of the association and few flat owners of the nine blocks none other flat owner (700) is aware the cases and its present stage.
Now the builder has obtained an Interim Stay order from the National Commission on 16/7/2010, against the A P State Commission orders dt: 6/7/2009. On 8/9/2010 on the date of hearing the National Commission has passed the following orders-“No one appears for the respondent association despite the appellant having complied with all the directions contained in the earlier order, which is also acknowledged by the respondent association. Heard. Admit. To be listed on 21/3/2011 before the Registrar for fixing a date of final hearing. Interim order to continue.”
Finally, the present president is retiring in two or three months time from the police department. Can we report the matter with higher for his misconduct and settlement? I have put to financial problems by all the flat owners. Almost all the flat owners are silent on the issue. Do the same notices be issued to them also? Please advice.
