AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that sufficient
time is not granted to the petitioner for producing documentary
evidence before the 3rd respondent-Commission.
The petitioner submits that a complaint as per Exhibit
P1 was filed by the 1st respondent, before the Commission; and
notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before
the Commission and sought for time, which was rejected. The
petitioner was before this Court with an earlier writ petition, which
was disposed of by this Court by Exhibit P2. This Court, noticing
the fact that there was a sitting on 25.03.2017, directed the
petitioner to file an application for time, which was directed to be
granted. The petitioner is seen to have filed an application, as seen
from Exhibit P3 dated 25.03.2017. The petitioner was then issued
with notice at Exhibit P4, directing appearance on 10.04.2017. The
petitioner appeared on 10.04.2017 and then on 15.04.2017 a
further application was filed, seeking a further time of three weeks.
The petitioner submits that on 15.04.2017 itself the evidence was
closed and the petitioner has not been issued with a certified copy of
the order.
As of now, there is no State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission notified for Lakshadweep; an Union Territory.
In any event, when a State Commission is notified, the petitioner
could definitely approach the State Commission to review the order
passed, if at all the Commission has closed the evidence. The
petitioner, however, would be ready with the materials and evidence
insofar as the prayer made in Exhibit P5 in April, 2017 was for 3
weeks and now we are in November, 2017.
In this context, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the Administration of Lakshadweep, who was
appearing for the 3rd respondent, submits that a notification has to be
issued by the Lakshadweep Administration appointing a State
Commission. The practice hitherto followed was to notify the State
Commission appointed for the State of Kerala as the State
Commission for Lakshadweep, with the concurrence of the State
Government. It is also submitted that there are two communications
dated 31.05.2017 and 12.10.2017 addressed to the Secretary to the
Government of Kerala, Department of Consumer Affairs,
Thiruvananthapuram for concurrence, which has not been responded
to till date. The fact of absence of a Commission for the State has
created problems to the litigating public, is the contention raised.
In the context of the facts as brought to the notice of
this Court, "The Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Department
of Consumer Affairs, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala" is suo motu
impleaded as the additional 4th respondent. The learned Government
Pleader is directed to take notice for the additional 4th respondent.
There shall be a direction to the additional 4th respondent to consider
the request of the Lakshadweep Administration and issue written
response as to the concurrence or otherwise, within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
There shall be no order as to costs. Registry shall forward a copy of
the judgment to the additional 4th respondent.