Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 order dated 18.03.2011 passed by the opposite party no.2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that once the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the cancellation of his fair price shop license had been admitted by the respondent no.1 and an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner staying the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 06.01.2011, the opposite party no.2 travelled beyond his jurisdiction in attaching the card-holders of the petitioner's shop with some other shop merely on the ground that the interim order passed by the respondent no.1 was not extended on 23.02.2011 due to nonavailability of respondent no.1. 7. Learned standing counsel appearing for the opposite parties made his submissions in support of the impugned order. 8. After having examined the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as other relevant records, I find that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have force and the same are liable to be accepted. 9. Once, the Appellate Authority had passed an interim order in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of respondent no.2 by which he had cancelled the petitioner's fair price shop license, staying the implementation and operation of the order passed by the opposite party no.2 and the stay order could not be extended not on account of any fault on behalf of the petitioner but due to nonavailability of the respondent no.1 on the date fixed, it was incumbent upon the respondent no.2 to have given a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to get the interim order extended before proceeding to attach the card-holders of his fair price shop with some other shop. 10. In my opinion the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 11. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.03.2011 passed by the opposite party no.2 is set aside. 12. However, respondent no.1 is directed to decide the appeal No. 80-03 in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Till the petitioner's appeal is decided, the interim order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the respondent no.1 shall remain in force. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 13.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHRI KANT TRIPATHI,J. Misc. Single No. - 2191 of 2011 Ghaziabad Development Authority Through Its V.C. Ghaziabad ...Petitioner Versus R.C.Saxena and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Arvind Kumar Constitution of India-Article 226- Alternative Remedy-order passed by State consumer Forum under Section 17 (1) (b) of consumer protection Act-by exercising revisional power-second revision before National Forum maintainable on joint reading of Section 19 and 21 of the Act-High Court already over burdened with large pendency of
1 All Ghaziabad Development Authority V. R.C. Saxenaand others 443 cases in view of Division Bench Case Dr. Manvendra Mishra-High Court refused to exercise its direction. Held: Para 14 As already discussed, the Act is a complete code in regard to redressal of grievances (complaints) of the consumer and also in regard to appeal and revision against the order passed by the State Commission and other authorities, and as such the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is a discretionary jurisdiction, should not be invoked in such matters. Case law discussed: (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 499; (2003) 2 SCC 107; (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 268; (2006) 5 S.C.C. 469; (2000) 1 UPLBEC 702; 2009 (2) ACR 2349 (Delivered by Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J. ) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 9.8.2010 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in revision no.109 of 2006, whereby the State Commission dismissed the petitioner's revision and confirmed the order dated 28.4.2006 of the District Forum, Ghaziabad. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the State Commission has passed the aforesaid order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 17(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), therefore, the order so passed is not appealable before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'National Commission'). According to section 19 of the Act only an order passed under sub clause (i) of clause (a) of section 17 of the Act is appealable before the National Commission, therefore, the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. 2. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers' disputes and for matters connected therewith. The Act has provisions for constitution of District Forum, State Commission and National Commission, respectively, at the District level, State level and the National level for redressal of the grievances (complaints) of the consumer. 3. The National Commission has power of revision and that power has been very specifically conferred on the National Commission under section 21 (b) of the Act. Moreso, section 21 (a) (ii) of the Act has conferred jurisdiction on the National Commission to entertain appeals against the orders of any State Commission but there is no specification as to which of the orders of the State Commission is appealable under section 21 (1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 21 (a) (ii) of the Act have to be read alongwith the provisions of section 19 of the Act. As such the orders passed by the State Commission in exercise of original jurisdiction under section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Act is appealable before the National Commission. If the provisions of section 21 (a)(ii) of the Act is read in isolation, each and every order passed by the State Commission is appealable before
Page 1 and 2:
1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 3 and 4:
1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 5 and 6:
1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jaho
Page 7 and 8:
1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jaho
Page 9 and 10: 1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jaho
Page 23 and 24: 1 All] Amanattullah and others V. A
Page 29 and 30: 1 All] Anis Ahmad @ Chand Babu V. S
Page 31 and 32: 1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 33 and 34: 1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 35 and 36: 1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 37 and 38: 1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 39 and 40: 1 All] Kulwant Singh V. State of U.
Page 45 and 46: 1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 47 and 48: 1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 49 and 50: 1 All] Jile Singh V. State of U.P.
Page 51 and 52: 1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 53 and 54: 1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 55 and 56: 1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 57 and 58: 1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 59: 1 All] Ram Pheran Yadav V. Commissi
Page 63 and 64: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 65 and 66: 1 All Pankaj Kumar and others V. St
Page 73 and 74: 1 All Dev Sharan Yadav V. State of
Page 75 and 76: 1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 77 and 78: 1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 79 and 80: 1 All Shiv Om and others V. Distric
Page 81 and 82: 1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 83 and 84: 1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 85 and 86: 1 All Nagina and others V. State of
Page 87 and 88: 1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V
Page 93 and 94: 1 All Naushad Alam V. State of U.P.
Page 103 and 104: 1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkar
Page 111 and 112:
1 All Vikas Singh and others V. Sta
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
show all

Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?