The District Forum and the State Commission do not have jurisdiction to entertain complaints or appeals related to the grant of permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Mr. Justice Mitra, J.—In this Revisional Application the petitioners have challenged, inter alia, the order dated 26th March, 1991 passed by the President, Calcutta District Forum under the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 in C.D.F. Case No. 2045 of 1991 and also the order dated 5th April, 1991, passed by the President, State COMMISSION, under the said Act, in SC Case No. 256 of 1991, inter alia, on the ground of jurisdiction of both the aforesaid Tribunals in passing the respective orders.

2. The case as made out by the petitioners in the Revisional application inter alia, is that the opposite party No. 1 lodged a complaint before the President, Calcutta District Forum under the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 giving rise to CDF Case No. 2045 of 1991 inter alia, for the following reliefs:—

(a) To pass an order directing the writ Petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be directed to grant permit to the opposite party No. 1 on the route Calcutta to Jalpaiguri via. Barasat, Beharampur, Malda, Raiganj and Siliguri, having Long Route Conductor Licence, under Section 30 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988;

(b) After hearing both the parties to direct the writ petitioners to grant permit to the opposite party No. 1 on the same route and also for an interim order directing the writ petitioners to grant and/or issue an interim permit to the opposite party No. 1 on the said route and grant a leave to the opposite party No. 1 to ply a bus on the said route without any interference.

3. It was contended by the opposite party No. 1 in the said complaint that he had a Long Route Conductor Licence and having come to know that the State Transport Authority would grant permit on the aforesaid route, submitted an application for grant of temporary permit for the said route on 17th August, 1989, but since then his said application has not been considered by the authority concerned. It appears from the orders annexed to the Revisional application, that the President, Calcutta District Forum, on 26th March, 1991 not only directed to issue show-cause notices upon the writ petitioners, but at the same time also passed an interim order allowing the opposite party No. 1. to ply his bus on the aforesaid route without any interference till the grant of permit on the same route. Although the said order was in favour of the opposite party No. 1, the opposite party No. 1, however, for reasons best known to him, preferred an appeal before the President, State Commission being S.C.’ Case No. 256 of 1991; in which the President, State Commission on 5th April, 1991, after admitting the appeal and directing to issue notice upon the respondents therein i.e., the writ petitioners, passed an interim order allowing the opposite party No. 1 to ply his bus on the aforesaid route without any interference till the grant of permit on the said route and the police and the other concerned authorities were also directed not to create any problem in the matter of smooth running of the bus by the opposite party No. 1 on the aforesaid route.

4. It is contended by Mr. Sett, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, with Mr. Bhattacharjee, that both the President, Calcutta District Forum and the President, State Commission had lacked initial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint lodged by the opposite party No. 1 as well as the appeal filed by the opposite party No. 1 and the impugned orders which have been challenged in the present Revisional Application are thus nullities, inter alia, on the grounds that the opposite party No. 1 not being a consumer within the meaning as given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has no right to lodge a complaint before the Calcutta District Forum as per the provisions of the said Act, inasmuch as, only a consumer under the said Act, for getting relief as provided under Section 14 of the said Act, since the composition of the Calcutta District Forum as well as the State Commission are both initi