Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
Block Land & Land Reform Officer
and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Bhupati Ranjan Mitra – Respondent
Revision Petition No.1024 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 25/02/2020 in Appeal No.15/2019 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 29.6.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy not a rule of law, rather a rule of convenience.
(2) Statutory court or tribunals are bound to decide the dispute on merit if it has the jurisdiction to adjudicate it.
(3) Commissions constituted under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have wide jurisdiction to examine in cases of service, rendered by Statutory/Public authorities.
(4) Rule of alternative remedy cannot be applied by statutory court or tribunals as the complainant is a dominus litis and has right to choose forum.
Headnote:
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 58(1)(b)] – Revision Petition - Against the Order dt. 25.02.2020 of the State Commission – Petitioners initiated proceeding against father of the respondent herein for vesting of ancestral land – Vesting Order passed – Respondent’s father’s appeal and revision dismissed – Orders challenged in writ, finally allowed by Calcutta High Court & orders of vesting set aside – Respondent’s father died - Respondent filed application, several reminders for recording his name over the disputed land in compliance of High Court Order; nothing done – Respondent’s complaint allowed - Forum directed petitioners to pay amt. of Rs.100,000/- as compensation, Rs.20,000/- as litigation costs - Appeal of petitioners dismissed - Petitioners’ contention: Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 not maintainable –Rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy not a rule of law, rather a rule of convenience - Rule only applied by Constitutional Courts in appropriate cases – Statutory court or tribunals bound to decide the dispute on merit if it has the jurisdiction to adjudicate it - Rule of alternative remedy cannot be applied by statutory court or tribunals; complainant is a dominus litis and has right to choose forum. (Paras 3, 4 & 9)
(B) Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 23 - Respondent filed multiple applications and reminders under Right to Information Act, 2005 – No requisite information given by Petitioner or any other authority - Commissions constituted under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have wide jurisdiction to examine in cases of service rendered by Statutory/Public authorities. (Para 5 & 11)
Result: Revision has no merit, dismissed.
ORDER
Heard Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advocate, for the petitioners.
2. Office has reported that this revision has been filed with delay of 170 days. Supreme Court has directed that as a result of imposition of lockdown in the country due to pandemic Covid-19 as well as its affect throughout the country, the delay occurred during this period is liable to be condoned. Accordingly, the delay in filing the revision is condoned. The revision shall be deemed to have been filed within time.
3. This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Circuit Bench Siliguri, dated 25.02.2020, passed in Appeal No. A-15 of 2019 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj, dated 12.12.2018, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 32 of 2018), whereby District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, has allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.100,000/- as compensation including for mental harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation costs and the appeal of the petitioners, filed from the aforesaid order, has been dismissed.
4. The petitioners initiated a proceeding (registered as Vesting Case No. 156/9/1978) for vesting of the ancestral land recorded in the name of Brajgopal Mitra (father of the respondent) in the State and a vesting order was passed on 22.08.1981. The appeal and the revision filed by Brajgopal Mitra, against it, were dismissed. These orders were challenged in Writ LRT No. 1321 of 2002, which was ultimately allowed by Calcutta High Court, vide judgement dated 12.07.2006 and the orders of vesting were set aside. In the meantime, Brajgopal Mitra died and was inherited by his son Bhupati Ranjan Mitra. The respondent filed an application on 08.06.2011, before Block Land & Land Reform Officer, Itahar, Uttar Dinajpur (petitioner-1) for recording his name over the disputed land, in compliance of aforesaid order of High Court. Thereafter, he gave reminders dated 05.01.2012, 21.03.2012, 31.03.2012 and 10.06.2015 but nothing was done.
5. Thereafter, Bhupati Ranjan Mitra filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005, on 15.07.2015, seeking information of the order, passed on his application dated 08.06.2011, relating to compliance of the order of High Court. He again filed another application dated 13.08.2015 for information. Petitioner-1 informed the respondent on 31.08.2015 that his application was sent to Block Land & Land Record Officer, Kaliaganj, vide Memo No. Law/X/KLJ-09/450/15 dated 07.07.2015, for compliance. The respondent then filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005, before Block Land & Land Record Officer, Kaliaganj on 29.09.2015, seeking information of the order passed on his application dated 08.06.2011. Block Land & Land Record Officer, Kaliaganj vide letter dated 09.10.2015, informed that the land in dispute did not situate within his territorial jurisdiction, as such, he could not pass any order on it. The respondent then moved another application before Block Land and Land Reform Officer, Itahar, Uttar Dinajpur, seeking some other information. Block Land and Land Reform Officer, Itahar, Uttar Dinajpur through his letter dated 26.11.2015, informed that although vesting case was related to 6.48 acres land but record of that case was not available with him. The respondent was not satisfied with reply and filed an appeal before District Land & Land Reform Officer (petitioner-2) on 11.12.2015. Petitioner-2 then, vide his letter dated 29.12.2015, directed petitioner-1 to give proper reply of the letter of the respondent 13.08.2015. Petitioner-1, vide his letter dated 19.01.2016 apprised petitioner-2 that he had already furnished required information of all the questions. The respondent then gave reminders dated 17.02.2016 and 15.03.2016. Petitioner-1, vide letter dated 22.07.2016, apprised petitioner-2 that record of the case relating to vesting was not with him rather
