TELECOM DIVISIONAL ENGINEER vs VIRENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL

THIS Revision Petition has been filed against the orders dated 8th April, 1994 and 10th May, 1994 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow in Appeal No. 17/93 which is pending for decision before that Commission. Vide order dated 8th April, 1994 the President of the State Commission acting singly, ordered that the Complainant (Respondent in the appeal) should furnish a Bank Guarantee from a nationalised Bank valid for a period of one year favouring the Appellant therein before the District Forum Moradabad and the Appellant would restore the telephone connection of the Complainant within two days and ensure its proper functioning. It may be mentioned here that the appeal has been filed by the present petitioner, Telecom Divisional Engineer.

IT appears that the Respondent complied the direction about furnishing bank guarantee but his telephone was not restored by the Department. He, therefore, filed an application before the State Commission complaining that inspite of furnishing the Bank Guarantee his telephone was not restored. On 27th April, 1994 a show cause notice was issued under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act to the present Petitioner-Telecom Divisional Engineer that why he should not be punished. Vide order dated 10th May, 1994 the State Commission punished the Telecom Divisional Engineer with one month's imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-. It was further ordered that in case of default of fine he will have to undergo additional 15 days'' imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved of that order the present petitioner has filed this Revision Petitioner. On going through the records and hearing the Counsel appearing on both sides, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. As noticed above the order dated 8th April, 1994 was passed by the President sitting singly. In view of Section 14(2) read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act it is mandatory that the proceedings be conducted by the President of the State Commission jointly with at least one Member. Hence, order dated 8th April, 1994 is illegal.

ORDER dated 10th May, 1994 cannot be upheld because it relates to the violation of the interim order dated 8th April, 1994 which as noticed above is invalid.

IN the light of the above observation we accept the present Revision Petition and set aside the impugned orders dated 8th April, 1994 and 10th May, 1994 passed by the State Commission. Fine if paid under the impugned orders be refunded. No costs.