Parliament is not permitted to set up courts parallel to the ordinary law courts unless there is a special need for a special class of litigants.

AJOY NATH RAY, J.

( 1 ) THESE writ applications raise two points. The first point is whether organisations like Peerless and CESC are rendering service to the individual respondents within the meaning of the definition of service as given in Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. If these organisations are rendering such service then the second point arises, which is whether the said Act is at all a valid Act.

( 2 ) THE Supreme Court has already spoken on the Consumer Act on at least three occasions. Those are three reported cases which have been cited on behalf of the respondents.

( 3 ) ALTHOUGH due notice was sent to the highest law officers of the country yet their offices sent no special representation for contesting these writ matters. However, a strong contest has been put up both by Mr. Mukherji and by Mr. Das and, in my opinion, they have left no stone unturned in their attempt to support the Act as a whole and also each and every individual portion thereof.

( 4 ) THE three Supreme Court cases referred to above were also cited by ' them in support of their case. Those cases are respectively reported as Indian Medical Association v. V. P. Shantha , Laxmi Engineering Works v. P. S. G. Industrial Institute and Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta. The cases have been carefully placed before me, as indeed those must be, since those are the pronouncements of the highest legal authority in India. Reading the doctor's case as I do, which is reported as Indian Medical Association v. V. P. Shantha, it appears to me that it is no longer open for Peerless to contend that the matter relating to the pension certificate payment referred to in their writ petitions would not constitute service rendered by them to the consumer (certificate purchaser) within the meaning of the 1986 Act. The case of CESC that their setting up of a public fountain is free of charge makes their case of not rendering service more arguable, but as the Peerless and the CESC case were presented together and both argued on the invalidity of the Act, a determination of that crucial issue can neither be postponed nor shelved.

( 5 ) IN the flat allotment case reported as Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta, the Supreme Court showed that within the meaning of service there is possibility of Government service or allied public service being also included thus attracting the 1986 Act.

( 6 ) IN the case reported as Laxmi Engineering Works v. P. S. G. Industrial Institute extensive reference has been made as to the manner in which the legislation came into being. The United Nations' resolution is referred to and consumer redressal in respect thereof has been historically traced as an outcome of such a resolution.

( 7 ) IN the doctor's case, in the last paragraph their Lordships even went so far as to say that the challenge put forward by the doctors with regard to Articles 14 and 19 were also unacceptable to their Lordships. This being binding on me, much of the argument made by Mr. Gupta no longer needs to be considered.

( 8 ) BEFORE I go on to the other points, which, in my opinion, still remain outstanding, let me dispose of those points of Mr. Gupta which have become unarguable any further in view of the Supreme Court pronouncements.

( 9 ) THE proposition that Peerless (and arguably CESC too) renders no service within the meaning of the Act is no longer arguable. It is also no longer arguable that the composition of the forum makes the forum itself unconstitutional, as, such a composition will lead to arbitrariness and a possible violation of Article 14.

( 10 ) MR. Gupta heavily drew upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Special Courts Bill, 1978, In re, when he had first argued this case quite some time back. He pointed out that there the Supreme Court recorded three concessions in regard to the proposed Special Courts Bill, and one of the most important concessions related to the personnel who would preside over the Spe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document