J. Anandhan vs Union of India and Others

Hon''ble Mr. Justice, K. Chandru

The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order passed by the 4th respondent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in C.C.No.79 of 2009 dated 31.01.2012. The petitioner seeks for setting aside the same and for a consequential direction to hear C.C.No.79 of 2009 in accordance with law. It is stated by the petitioner that though there is a State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Puducherry, it is headless and when he wanted to move the National Commission at New Delhi, they seek for an order of the State Commission. Under the said circumstances, allegedly invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the Writ Petition came to be filed.

However, the fact that the Presiding Officer is not appointed, cannot be a ground to bypass the hierarchy of appeal provided under the Act. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the District Forum, in view of the fact that this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition, this Court is also not inclined to go into the allegations raised or the merits of the case.

In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Saini Vs. DCM Ltd. and Others, In paragraphs 12 to 14, the Supreme Court had observed as follows:

Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the District Forum can file an appeal before the State Commission. If he is not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, a further remedy is available by way of revision before the National Commission. If the complaint is decided by the State Commission, the aggrieved person can file an appeal before the National Commission. Elaborate procedure has been laid down for filing of the complaints and disposal thereof. Since the 1986 Act is a special statute enacted by Parliament for better protection of the interest of consumers and a wholesome mechanism has been put in place for adjudication of consumer disputes, the remedy of appeal available to a person aggrieved by an order of the State Commission cannot but be treated as an effective alternative remedy.

Admittedly, Respondent 1 had availed the alternative remedy available to it u/s 21 by filing an appeal against the order of the State Commission. During the pendency of the appeal, Respondent 1 chose to challenge the order of the State Commission by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was entertained by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the assurance given by the learned counsel that the appeal filed before the National Commission will be withdrawn. The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 21-3-2007 or the one by which the petition filed by Respondent 1 was finally disposed of does not contain any indication as to why the learned Single Judge thought it proper to make a departure from the rule that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person.

In our view, during the pendency of the appeal filed by Respondent 1 u/s 21 of the 1986 Act, the learned Single Judge was not at all justified in entertaining the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution merely because he thought that the State Commission did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the scheme sanctioned by the Company Judge u/s 391 read with Sections 392 and 394 of the Companies Act.

In the light of the same, the Writ Petition cannot be entertained.

Mr. Bharatha Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner states that atleast a direction should be issued to the Government to appoint a head of the State Commission. However, the Government of Puducherry is hereby directed to appoint a Presiding Officer to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission so that the appeals from the District Forum are heard at an early date. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.