Back
2010 (5) Supreme 665
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Maharshi Dayanand University — Appellant
versus
Surjeet Kaur — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6807 of 2008
Decided on : 19-7-2010
(b) Judicial Review – Court has no competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can it direct an authority to act in contravention of statutory provisions. (Para 10)
(1994) 1 SCC 175; AIR 2002 SC 629; AIR 2010 SC 1099 – Relied upon
(c) Promissory estoppel – Promissory estoppel does not apply against a Statute – This can also not apply against the Legislature, nor can the Government or public authority be debarred from enforcing a statutory prohibition – Promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, must yield when the equity so requires. (Paras 16 and 17)
(1996) 7 SCC 665; AIR 1962 SC 554; (1999) 6 SCC 464; (2000) 6 SCC 84; (2002) 6 SCC 127; AIR 2004 SC 1796; (2008) 12 SCC 675; (2009) 6 SCC 194 – Relied upon
(d) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Appellant University is not a service provider and a student taking examination is not a consumer. (Para 19)
(2009) 8 SCC 483 – Relied upon
AIR 1978 SC 548; F.A. No.643 of 1994 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
1.The issue in this case is whether a University is covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2.The National Commission relying on its larger Bench judgment in F.A. No.643 of 1994 dated 31.5.2001 held that imparting of education by the educational institutions for consideration falls within the ambit of service as defined under the Act and further relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa & Ors. AIR 1978 SC 548 held that in view of the ratio of the said decision and the peculiar facts of the case, the respondent was entitled for the relief claimed.
Finding of the Court:
The district forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —
1.The Maharshi Dayanand University (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) has questioned the correctness of the order in Revision Petition No.132/06 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter called “National Commission”) dated 27.4.2007 whereby the National Commission has allowed the Revision Petition and the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “State Commission”) has been set aside simultaneously restoring the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (hereinafter called as “District Forum”). A further direction has been issued to the appellant to issue the B.Ed. Degree to the respondent on the basis of the results of her examinations which were held in December, 1998.
2.The dispute arose when the respondent felt aggrieved by the action of the appellant refusing to confer the degree of B.Ed. on her. The background of the facts giving rise to the case was that the respondent took admission in the academic session of 1994-95 as a regular student to pursue the course of M.A. in Political Science from Government College, Gurgaon. The respondent appeared in the Part-II Examination in May, 1995 as a regular candidate and in the same academic session of 1994-95 she also applied for admission in the B.Ed. (correspondence course) without disclosing the fact that she was already pursuing the regular course of M.A. in Political Science. The University at the time of preparation of the results of M.A. in Political Science discovered that the respondent had been pursuing her B.Ed. course in violation of Clause 17(b) of the General Rules of Examination and accordingly the respondent was informed that in view of the aforesaid rules she should exercise her option to choose anyone of the courses.
3.The respondent voluntarily and consciously opted for pursuing her course of M.A. in Political Science and forewent her B.Ed. Degree course.
4.Subsequently, the University as a general measure of benefit granted an indulgence through Notification dated 16.3.1998 giving a further chance to such Ex. students who had not been able to complete their post-graduation/B.Ed. courses within the span of prescribed period as provided for under the rules. The supplementary examinations in this regard were announced by the University in the month of December, 1998.
5.The respondent applied under the said Notification for appearing in B.Ed. examination and succeeded in appearing in the examinations and also passed the same. The Appellant- University refused to confer the degree of B.Ed. on the respondent. Aggrieved, the respondent approached the District Forum in the year 2000 praying for the relief which has now been ultimately awarded in the impugned order of National Commission. The District Forum passed an order in favour of the respondent vide judgment and order dated 24.9.2004 and directed the appellant to issue the B.Ed. degree and also award Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the respondent. This order was passed by the District Forum despite a specific objection taken by the appellant that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint and award any such relief.
6.Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the State Commission and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 19.10.2005. The judgment of the District Forum was set aside holding that the District Forum should not have entertained the complaint. The respondent aggrieved by the order of the State Commission preferred a revision under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to ‘Act 1986’) before the National Commission which has been allowed by way of the impugned order. The National Commission took notice of the issue relating to the entertaining of the complaint and the jurisdiction of the District Forum to hear the same. The National Commission relying on its larger Bench judgment in,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
