NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of transparent governance and emphasises the legal principle of ‘contra proferentem’, reinforcing the need for clear communication in administrative processes, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has sided with a retired head constable from the para-military service, ordering Haryana govt to allocate him a residential plot in Hisar, in a decision that reverses a previous order of the state consumer commission.
Contra proferentem is a rule of contract interpretation that states that an ambiguous contract term should be construed against the drafter of the contract.
Retired personnel Naresh Kumar had got the plot of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) through a draw under the reservation criteria for ex-servicemen in Feb 2014. But later govt cancelled the allotment citing that he did not fall in the category. Following this, Kumar challenged the cancellation of the plot in district consumer commission, which ruled in his favour. Yet, HUDA appealed to the state commission, which upheld the cancellation but ordered it to refund the earnest money with 12% interest.
Kumar contested the state commission’s ruling at NCDRC, arguing that he qualified as an ex-serviceman based on a HUDA circular specifying a 10% reservation for defence personnel and ex-servicemen, including those from paramilitary forces. HUDA contended that the draw brochure clearly delineated reservation categories and excluded paramilitary personnel from the ex-servicemen category.
Hearing the arguments, the NCDRC bench comprising members Sudip Ahluwalia and Rohit Kumar Singh bench referred to three documents available in public domain — HUDA brochure, letter of HUDA administrator of 1997 mentioning 10% quota for ex-servicemen and a subsequent letter of 1998 specifying 2% quota for paramilitary personnel.
The bench found that there was no explicit mention excluding retired paramilitary personnel from eligibility. It said that the state commission had failed to recognise that Kumar was not seeking special treatment but was entitled to the benefits outlined in the reservation criteria.
Passing the order for allotment of plot at the at of Feb 2014 when the original allotment was done, the NCDRC bench said, “The rule of contra proferentem is applicable in this case because the ambiguity and the consequent inadequate clarity has been created by the respondents and hence, the benefit of doubt is to be given to the petitioner on account of which they cannot unilaterally withdraw the allotment made by them to the petitioner.”