AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.C. Jain, J.
(1) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2) Rule D.B.
(3) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the jurisdiction of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum in respect of the complaint submitted against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, no complaint in respect of any immovable property could be entertained by the State Commission. According to the petitioner, any matter relating-to an immovable property is neither a service nor goods and so, the State Commission or the machinery provided under the Consumer Protection Act has no jurisdiction. We have been informed that the National forum has already expressed its opinion and has found that the machinery provided under the Consumer Protection Act has jurisdiction in such like complaints or matters relating to immovable property. That law provides appeal to the Supreme Court against the order passed by the National Commission. The petitioner can raise the question of jurisdiction before the State Commission and counsel for the petitioner states that this objection has already been raised by the petitioner before the Commission. When the law provides complete machinery, including an appeal to the Supreme Court, it would not be proper for this court to entertain this petition. However, we may express that since the question of jurisdiction that has been raised before the State Commission, the State Com- mission shall decide the question of jurisdiction first before deciding the complaint on its merits. We, Therefore, direct the State Commission to decide the question of jurisdiction, as raised by the petitioner before it, and shall decide the complaint thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. A copy of this order be sent to respondent No. 3.