Back
High Court Of Calcutta
SAMARESH BANERJEE
HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM - Respondent
C. O. 10895 Of 1995
Decided On : 12/15/1995
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - JURISDICTION - INTERIM ORDER - PRESIDENT OF COMMISSION - ABSENCE - VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 14, 16, 18A, 29A - WEST BENGAL RULES, RULES 6(9) AND 6(10) - MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company challenged the ad-interim order passed by the State Consumer Dispute Commission, West Bengal, restraining them from selling their products in the Indian market and abroad till the disposal of the case. The petitioner contended that the State Commission lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order and that the order was void as it was not signed by the President of the Commission but only by the other two members.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Commission did not have the jurisdiction to pass an interim order or ad-interim order as per the Supreme Court's decision in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartik Dal. The court also held that the impugned order was a nullity as it was not signed by the President of the Commission as required by Section 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court further held that the West Bengal Rules, Rules 6(9) and 6(10), which empowered the senior most member to function as President in the absence of the President, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and could not override them.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Commission had the jurisdiction to pass an interim order or ad-interim order? 2. Whether the impugned order was void as it was not signed by the President of the Commission? 3. Whether the West Bengal Rules, Rules 6(9) and 6(10), were contrary to the provisions of the Act and could override them?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the State Commission did not have the jurisdiction to pass an interim order or ad-interim order as per the Supreme Court's decision in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartik Dal. The court interpreted Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and held that the Commission or the District Forum could not grant any interim relief or even ad-interim relief and that only final relief could be granted under the Act. 2. The court held that the impugned order was a nullity as it was not signed by the President of the Commission as required by Section 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court interpreted Section 14(2) and held that every proceeding referred to in Section 14(1), which would also include proceedings before the State Commission, had to be conducted by the President sitting with at least one member and that the order passed by the Commission must be signed by the President and the member or members who conducted the proceedings along with the President. 3. The court held that the West Bengal Rules, Rules 6(9) and 6(10), which empowered the senior most member to function as President in the absence of the President, were contrary to the provisions of the Act and could not override them. The court interpreted Sections 14, 16, 18A, and 29A of the Act and held that the Rules were contrary to and overrode Sections 14(2), 16(a), and 18A of the Act and that such Rules, being a piece of subordinate legislation, could not override the Act.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order dated 28th June 1995 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in SC Case 297/0/95 as well as the entire proceeding in the aforesaid case. The court, however, clarified that this order would not prevent the respondent from filing a fresh complaint on the same cause of action if they were so advised in accordance with law.
( 1 ) IN the instant writ application the writ petitioner Company has challenged the ad interim order dated 28th June 1995 passed by the State Consumer Dispute Commission, West Bengal being the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to the State Commission), on the ground of total lack of jurisdiction of the State Commission to pass such order. By the aforesaid ad-interim order the State Commission restrained the petitioner Company from selling their product of toilet soaps, detergent etc in the Indian market and abroad till disposal of the case.
( 2 ) THE main challenge of the petitioners of the aforesaid ad interim order is on the ground of total lack of jurisdiction of the state Commission to pass interim order.
( 3 ) THE other main ground of challenge is that the said order is void as the order was to passed and signed by the President of the Commission but only by the other two members. In course of hearing it was admitted by the parties that the proceedings in question was initiated and the aforesaid order was passed by the two members of the State Commission in absence of the President who has reportedly not been attending the Commission being out of the station.
( 4 ) WHEN the writ petition was moved, prima facie being satisfied that the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction as the State Commission does not have the power to pass any interim order or ad-interim order, following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartik Dal reported in 1994 (4) Supreme Court Cases, page 225 and the case of In Re : State Transport Authority, reported in 1991 (2) Calcutta High Court Notes, page 131, an interim order for a limited period was granted on 30th June 1995 after dispension of service under Rule 27 because of the urgency of the situation. The respondent No. 2 thereafter appeared through its Learned Advocate and opposed the prayer to extend the interim order contending, inter alia, that the writ application is not maintainable because of existence of alternative remedy of appeal under Consumers Protection Act 1986 itself.
( 5 ) IN course of such hearing both the parties agreed that since only pure questions of law are involved in the writ petition the same itself can be disposed of on merits without any affidavits and accordingly both the parties addressed the court in full on the aforesaid questions of law and also submitted the written notes of argument.
( 6 ) BUT before going into the merits of the case it is necessary to dispose of the preliminary objection which has been raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It has been contended by the respondents, inter alia, because of presence of alternative remedy under the Consumers Protection Act 1986 by way of appeal and the said Act being a complete code itself and the Appellate Authority under the said Act being also competent to go into the question of jurisdiction, the petitioners cannot maintain the present writ petition. In support of their submissions the respondents, inter alia, have relied on the decision of Division Bench of this Court presided over the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Bhattacharjee Chief Justice, as His Lordship was there, in the case of Smt. Saswati Mehrotra (nee Mukhopadhyay) v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 1994 (1) Calcutta High Court Notes, page 167, and decision of Satyabrata Singh, J in the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank and Ors. v. President, Dist. Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum and Ors. reported in 1995 (1) Calcutta Law Journal, page 169. In the aforesaid Division Bench decision it has been held, inter alia, because of provisions of alternative remedy in the Consumers Protection Act, the writ Court should not ordinarily interfere with an order of the Consumers Forum and the practice to move the writ Court against every order of the Forum "at the drop of hat" is to be discouraged. In the case of Grindlays Bank and Ors. v. Cons
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
