RAM SARUP BHALLA vs Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana

THIS complaint deserves to be dismissed without issuing any notice to the opposite party as we are of the view that the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act nor he can be held to have hired the services of the opposite party-Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana for consideration. The grouse of Shri Ram Sarup Bhalla, complainant is that he was enrolled as an Advocate by Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh in 1991. After his enrolment as an Advocate, he practised. However, the enrolment was cancelled in the year 1995. He challenged the order by filing writ petition which was withdrawn and thereafter he has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana in cancelling the enrolment. He claims compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/-. He also claims refund of Rs. 600/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. He also claims a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- compensation for the period from January, 1996 to September, 1997.

IN the mater of enrolment of Advocate, Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana States at Chandigarh is performing statutory duties. Bar Council is an Authority constituted under the Bar Council Act. On charging fee as prescribed, law graduate is enrolled as an Advocate, authorising to practice in Courts. It cannot be said that the complainant had hired the services of the Bar Council, the opposite party. There was no question of deficiency in rendering service in the matter of cancellation of the enrolment. It may be observed tha t the ground for cancellation of the enrolment was that the LL.B. degree obtained by the complainant was from the institution which was not recognised/non- existing institution. Be that as it may, neither the complainant can be a ''consumer'' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act nor there was any deficiency on the part of the opposite party in granting or cancelling the enrolment. The complainant may have remedy elsewhere but not before the Fora. Earlier a question arose as to whether by making application for the grant of passport, the applicant could be considered as a ''consumer'' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The answer was given in the negative by Pondichery State Commission in Ganapathy v. The Regional Passport Officer, I (1995) CPJ 346 holding that the issuing of the passport is very far from service for consideration and that therefore, the complainant is not a ''consumer'' entitled to move the machinery created under the Consumer Protection Act. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is dismissed. Complaint dismissed.