AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Lingaraja Rath, J.—The only question raised in this appeal is the correctness of the circular issued by the respondent on 7-11-1995 following the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal that a complaint can be filed by the consumer activists organisation on behalf of its members alone, but for none else. Since that is the only question raised and the respondent has appeared through the counsel to justify the circular, we dispose of this appeal at the admission stage after hearing the learned counsel on both sides. The impugned circular of the respondent runs as follows:
"It is, therefore, clear from the above decision that a complaint can only be filed by'' the Consumer Activists Organisation on behalf of its member alone, but none else. Hence, it is necessary that this legal report shall be taken note of by the Consumer Activists Organisation which are filing complaints in this Forum."
In support of the writ petition it is stated in the affidavit that in pursuance of the circular the S.Rs. in C.F.R. Nos. 143 to 146/95, 157, 158/95, 163 to 165/95, 183/95, 207/95 and 338/95 were returned on the ground of the consumers being not members of the organisation. It is urged by Mr. B. V. Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellant that the circular is illegal in conflict with the provisions of Section 12(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'' ) and hence it is liable to struck down.
The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the circular to be based on the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in Telephone Services Society v. Calcutta Telephone 1995 (2) CPR. It is his further submission, as a matter of information to the Court, that some contempt proceedings are pending against the petitioner as arising out of the same circular inasmuch as the petitioner has abused and scandalised the respondent because of non-entertainment of the applications of the consumers filed through the petitioner-Organisation. It is also the submission that in many cases applications are not entertained on other grounds also apart from the cases being not entertainable by the circular in question. Even a further ground is urged that the order passed by the respondent is appealable before the State Commission and hence the writ petition should not be entertained.
Section 12(b) of the Act, so far as relevant for the purpose of this case, needs to be extracted for appreciation of the question involved.
"Section 12. Manner in which complaint shall be made.
A complaint, in relation to any goods sold or delivered or any service provided, may be filed with a District Forum by, -- (a) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(b) any recognised consumer association, whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or service provided is a member of such association or not; or
(c) xxx xxx xxx xxx
It is thus indisputable that the provisions of Section specifically provides that any recog-nised consumer association, whether or not the consumer is a member of it, may file the complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The provisions of the Act are explicit and unambiguous leaving no room for any doubt of the complaint being so maintainable. The circular issued by the respondent hence is in violation of the provisions of the statute. As the statute vests jurisdiction in the respondent-Forum to entertain the disputes in a particular manner, it does not allow an authority to the respondent to divest itself of the jurisdiction by means of a circular. The circular, in seeking to achieve such an object is without jurisdiction. A decision of the West Bengal Forum, though may be available for reference by the respondent, yet has no precedent value as the West Bengal Forum is not a Court of Record. It appears from the impugned circular issued by the respondent of it having regarded the decision of the West Bengal Forum as a binding precedent. The provisions of S. 12(b) of the Act was never referred either by the West Begal Forum in the reported order nor by the respondent.
We are not also persuaded to reject the appeal on the availability of alternative remedy to the appellant. It is far too well settled in law'' that the principle of alternative remedy has no application where the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice. Reference in the context may be made in A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani and Another, . Since the present circular is without jurisdiction, it is not necessary for the appellant to compulsorily approach the appellate authority under the Act before approaching this Court.
If any contempt proceedings is pending against the petitioner for having abused or scandalised the respondent, it is an independent matter which has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and has nothing to do regarding the legality or otherwise of the entertainment of the complaint.
In the result the appeal is allowed with costs.
Appeal allowed.