Back
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
KANCHAN CHAKRABORTY
Tahamina Khatun
Versus
Gandhi Centenary B.T. College
C.O. No. 529 of 2006
Decided On : 13-08-2010
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - LIMITATION - JURISDICTION - MAINTAINABILITY - ARTICLE 227 - ALTERNATE REMEDY: 1. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is not in derogation of other laws and provides additional remedies to consumers. 2. An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable even if an alternative remedy is available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, if the case falls within the category of "exceptional cases" and there is a gross jurisdictional error on the part of the State Commission. 3. The High Court has the power of superintendence over subordinate courts and tribunals under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is to be sparingly exercised to keep them within the bounds of their authority. 4. The High Court will not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. 5. The High Court's power under Article 227 cannot be invoked to correct errors of law or fact, but only to prevent grave injustice or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Tahamina Khatun, filed a suit in the 2nd Court of the learned Munsif at Barasat against Gandhi Centenary B.T. College, Profullanagar at Habra, for not admitting her in the B. Ed. Course for the academic sessions 1993-94. The petitioner was given service by the opposite party on the strength of the order passed by the High Court in S.A.T. 1800 of 2002. However, the petitioner was denied service by the opposite party in the year 1993. The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas, claiming compensation of Rs. 9,90,000/- and other reliefs from the opposite party on the ground that she lost her valuable nine (9) academic years due to laches and negligence on the part of the opposite party. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the matter was sub-judice in Civil Court. The petitioner challenged the order by preferring an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the complaint filed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was barred by Limitation and that the matter was sub-judice in Civil Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the State Commission committed no jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The High Court found that the complaint petition filed by the petitioner was hopelessly barred by limitation. The High Court also found that the petitioner failed to make out an "exceptional case" wherein the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction improperly and incorrectly necessitating the High Court to interfere by invoking its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when an alternative remedy is available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether the High Court can interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227? 3. Whether the High Court's power under Article 227 can be invoked to correct errors of law or fact?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court has the power of superintendence over subordinate courts and tribunals under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is to be sparingly exercised to keep them within the bounds of their authority. 2. The High Court will not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. 3. The High Court's power under Article 227 cannot be invoked to correct errors of law or fact, but only to prevent grave injustice or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Kanchan Chakraborty vs. Gandhi Centenary B.T. College:
Case Details and Parties * The case is Kanchan Chakraborty vs. Gandhi Centenary B.T. College, decided by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta on 13-08-2010 (!) (!) . * The petitioner is Tahamina Khatun, and the respondent is Gandhi Centenary B.T. College (!) . * The petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (!) .
Facts of the Case * The petitioner filed a suit in 1993 against the College for not admitting her in the B. Ed. Course for the 1993-94 academic session despite her name appearing on the merit list (!) . * Although the High Court later directed the College to admit the petitioner for the 2002-2003 session, the petitioner was denied service for the 1993 session (!) (!) . * The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 9,90,000/- for lost academic years (!) . * The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the matter was sub-judice in the Civil Court (!) . * The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the complaint was barred by limitation and the matter was sub-judice (!) .
Issues Raised * Whether the application under Article 227 is maintainable when an alternative remedy (appeal to the National Commission) is available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Judgement Subject]. * Whether the High Court can interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal under Article 227 [Judgement Subject]. * Whether the High Court's power under Article 227 can be invoked to correct errors of law or fact [Judgement Subject].
Legal Principles and Arguments * The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, provides additional remedies and is not in derogation of other laws [Judgement Subject] (!) . * An application under Article 227 is maintainable even if an alternative remedy exists, provided the case falls under "exceptional cases" involving a gross jurisdictional error [Judgement Subject] (!) . * The power of superintendence under Article 227 is to be sparingly exercised to ensure subordinate courts function within their authority [Judgement Subject] (!) . * The High Court will not interfere with findings of fact or correct errors of law/fact under Article 227, except to prevent grave injustice or flagrant abuse of justice [Judgement Subject] (!) . * The petitioner argued that since no appeal lay against the State Commission's order in the National Commission, Article 227 was the appropriate remedy (!) (!) . * The respondent argued that since an alternative remedy was available under the Act, the High Court should not entertain the Article 227 application (!) .
Court's Findings and Decision * The High Court held that the State Commission committed no jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeal [Judgement Subject] (!) . * The Court found the complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation because the cause of action arose in 1993, not when the petitioner was eventually admitted in 2002 (!) . * The petitioner failed to establish an "exceptional case" necessitating High Court intervention [Judgement Subject] (!) . * The revision application was dismissed, and the petitioner's petition was not entertained [Judgement Subject] (!) .
Procedural History * The challenge was to the order dated 25.10.2005 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (!) . * The petitioner had exhausted the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act by filing an appeal in the State Commission before approaching the High Court (!) (!) . * No order as to costs was passed, and any interim stay order was vacated (!) (!) .
Kanchan Chakraborty, J.
1) The challenge in this application Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 25.10.2005 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in S.C. Case No. 294/A/04, thereby affirming the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas in D.F. Case No. 39 of 2004 on 5.7.2004.
2) Tahamina Khatun (referred to as the petitioner hereinafter) instituted a suit being no. 94 of 1993 in the 2nd Court of learned Munsif at Barasat against Gandhi Centenary B.T. College, Profullanagar at Habra (referred to as the opposite party hereinafter) and prayed for the following reliefs:-
i) The defendant be directed not to give any effect/further effect to arbitrary/illegal selection made on 24.6.1993, till the disposal of the suit or alternatively keep birth referred for the plaintiff till the disposal of the suit;
ii) Grant provisional admission to the plaintiff and allow the plaintiff to attend the classes in B. Ed. Class for its 1993-94 sessions;
iii) Temporary/permanent injunction;
iv) Costs;
v) Such other relief or reliefs as the learned Court may determine;
It was the case of the petitioner that she filed application for admission in B. Ed. Course for the academic sessions 1993-94 in response to the advertisement of the Opposite Party/College. The opposite party published merit list and her name appeared in the list of eligible candidates. All the eligible candidates including the petitioner were asked by the opposite party to report on 22.6.1993 with all necessary documents for the purpose of admission. The petitioner was again asked by the opposite party to report on 24.6.1993 with all documents together with ration card. On 24.6.1993, her documents were verified by the opposite party and the opposite party refused to admit her in the B. Ed. Course for the academic year 93-94. The petitioner felt that the decision of the opposite party was arbitrary and, as such, she filed the suit and prayed for the reliefs mentioned above.
3) The learned Court by one interlocutory order directed the opposite party to admit the petitioner in the B. Ed. Course. The opposite party preferred an appeal being no. Misc. Appeal No. – 117 of 1993 against that interim order. The learned Appellate Court disposed of the Misc. appeal on 7.4.1994 with a direction on the opposite party to admit the petitioner. But the opposite party in spite of carrying out direction of the Court, filed a second appeal being no. S.A.T. 1800/2002 in this Court and this Court by an order dated 19.8.2002, directed the opposite party to admit the petitioner for the academic session 2002-2003 in B. Ed. Course in their college. This Court also disposed of the suit pending in the Court of learned Munsif in view of the admission given to the petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner had taken admission in the opposite party/college for the academic sessions 2002-03.
4) In the meantime, the opposite party raised question of maintainability of the T.S. 94/93 and also filed an appeal being no. T.A. 93 of 2002. As stated earlier, the suit was disposed of in view of the order dated 23.8.2002 by this Court in S.A.T. 1800 of 2002. But, the T.A. No. 93 of 2000 remained. The petitioner, on 03.03.04, filed one complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas claiming for compensation of Rs. 9,90,000/- and other reliefs from the opposite party on the ground that she lost her valuable nine (9) academic years due to laches and negligence on the part of the opposite party. The petitioner being a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 was refused by the opposite party to provide proper service in due time. On 5.7.2004, the learned District Forum dismissed the D.F. Case no. 39 of 2004 on the ground that the matter/dispute was sub-judice in Civil Court.
5) The petitioner challenged that order by preferring an appeal in the State Consumer Dis
AI
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
