Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Khwaja Mohammad Yusuf
N.TANEJA ALIAS NIRMALA TANEJA - Appellant
Versus
CALCUTTA DISTRICT FORUM - Respondent
C. O. 873 Of 1991
Decided On : 09/18/1991
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - Applicability - Education - Whether education comes within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Whether the District Forum under the Act can entertain any complaint relating to Education - Whether the Calcutta District Forum does not exist with a single member according to the Act and cannot hold its sitting - Whether Rule 5 (5) of the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 overrides section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such the said Rule 5 (5) is bad, illegal and inoperative.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, permanent teachers of Arya Vidya Mandir, challenged the C. D. F. Case No. 900 of 1990 or another case with the cause-title of Mahangilal Barmecha vs. M. Taneza ond another pending before the Calcutta District Forum as well as the notice to show cause under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioners prayed for quashing the plaint filed by Mr. Barmecha and the ad interim 'order dated 20th February, 1990 passed by the President of the Forum. The petitioners also prayed to remove the respondent No. 2 Mr. Shyam Sundar Gupta, from the office of the President of the Calcutta District Forum. The case of the petitioners, in short, is that they are permanent teachers of Arya Vidya Mandir approved and recognised by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. The petitioner No. 1 is, a Headmistress and the petitioner No. 2 is the class-teacher of Class X-A. The School imparts general education above the primary education stage qualifying the students for admission to a Certificate, diploma or degree course instituted by the University or the Government. The petitioners were approved and appointed teachers in term of Rule 28 of the Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions Rules, 1969 so far as the dismissal of any teacher of the School is concerned, the disciplinary proceeding to that effect would have to be taken by the Managing Committee with the approval of the Board. The main contention of the petitioners is that no authority other than Board can remove any teacher of any school except the Board. It is the further case of the petitioners that except imparting education to the students, the teacher never renders any service to any student or guardian. The rendering of service as contemplated and question of any deficiency as defined in the Consumer Protection Act has got no application.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Education does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and no District Forum under the Act can entertain any complaint relating to Education. The Court further held that Mr. Shyam Sundar Gupta, Respondent No. 2, has no authority to describe himself as the President of the Calcutta District Forum and all the orders passed by Mr. Gupta in his capacity as 'president" of the Calcutta District Forum are illegal, invalid and inoperative in general. The Court also held that the Calcutta District Forum does not exist with a single member according to the Act and cannot hold its sitting. The Court further held that Rule 5 (5) of the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 overrides section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such the said Rule 5 (5) is bad, illegal and inoperative.
Issues: Whether Education comes within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Whether the District Forum under the Act can entertain any complaint relating to Education. Whether the Calcutta District Forum does not exist with a single member according to the Act and cannot hold its sitting. Whether Rule 5 (5) of the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 overrides section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such the said Rule 5 (5) is bad, illegal and inoperative.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Education does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and no District Forum under the Act can entertain any complaint relating to Education. The Court further held that Mr. Shyam Sundar Gupta, Respondent No. 2, has no authority to describe himself as the President of the Calcutta District Forum and all the orders passed by Mr. Gupta in his capacity as 'president" of the Calcutta District Forum are illegal, invalid and inoperative in general. The Court also held that the Calcutta District Forum does not exist with a single member according to the Act and cannot hold its sitting. The Court further held that Rule 5 (5) of the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 overrides section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such the said Rule 5 (5) is bad, illegal and inoperative.
Final Decision: The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioners have moved the writ application challenging the C. D. F. Case No. 900 of 1990 or another case with the cause-title of Mahangilal Barmecha vs. M. Taneza ond another pending before the Calcutta District Forum as well as the notice to show cause under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioners prayed for quashing the plaint filed by Mr. Barmecha and the ad interim 'order dated 20th February, 1990 passed by the President of the Forum. The petitioners also prayed to remove the respondent No. 2 Mr. Shyam Sundar Gupta, from the office of the President of the Calcutta District Forum.
( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners, in short, is that they are permanent teachers of Arya Vidya Mandir approved and recognised by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. The petitioner No. 1 is, a Headmistress and the petitioner No. 2 is the class-teacher of Class X-A. The School imparts general education above the primary education stage qualifying the students for admission to a Certificate, diploma or degree course instituted by the University or the Government. The petitioners were approved and appointed teachers in term of Rule 28 of the Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions Rules, 1969 so far as the dismissal of any teacher of the School is concerned, the disciplinary proceeding to that effect would have to be taken by the Managing Committee with the approval of the Board. The main contention of the petitioners is that no authority other than Board can remove any teacher of any school except the Board. It is the further case of the petitioners that except imparting education to the students, the teacher never renders any service to any student or guardian. The rendering of service as contemplated and question of any deficiency as defined in the Consumer Protection Act has got no application. It is the further case of the petitioners that the guardian of a student in any educational institution cannot be termed as a consumer nor the student is a beneficiary of the consumer since in an educational institution education is imparted by teachers and the teachers' services are not hired. Miss. Ekta Barmecha, daughter of the respondent No. 3, was Class X-A student and she could not pass all the Terminal Examinations of Class VIII and Class IX including Annual Examination but on each occasion at the request of her mother she 'was promoted to higher class on the assurances that the guardians would take special care relating to her studies. In the pre-test examination held in September 1990 she again failed in several subjects while she was student in Class X-A and she also did miserably bad in selection test held from 5th to 15th December, 1990. From the table given in paragraph 8 it appears that she passed only in English and Work Education and failed in all the other Subjects. It is stated that when the selection test result was published 'on 19th December, 1990, the respondent No. 3 approached the petitioner No. 1 on the next day with a request to send her for Madhyamik Examination and when told that because of the poor result she could not be sent up, the respondent No. 3 expressed that in a different school by spending a substantial amount his daughter could have been sent for Madhyamik Examination. The petitioner No. 1 strongly protested and said that the education cannot be made a purchasable commodity. It is alleged that the respondent No. 3 told the petitioner No. 1 that he has got connection with high officials including the President of the Calcutta District Forum, the respondent No. 2, who is a close friend of his and at 2 p. m. on the said day the respondent No. 3 again came to meet the petitioner No. 1 with another person and introduced him as respondent No. 2 and handed over his identity card and both requested the petitioner to send the girl for Madhyamik Examination but the petitioner No. 1 refused to comply. The identity card is enclosed as Annexure 'a' to the
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
