The court held that the presence of an alternative statutory remedy precludes the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside of order dated 27.02.2024 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Una (for short, the “District Consumer Commission”) in Execution Petition No. 33/2021.

2. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that The Deoli Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. (for short “the Society”) is registered under the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (for short, “the Act”). The Registrar of the Society has superseded the management of the Society and has appointed an Administrator. It has further been submitted that lastly the Society has gone into liquidation and a Liquidator has also been appointed.

3. It is contended that previously the petitioner was the President of the Society, but after the appointment of Administrator and Liquidator, he has no role to play in the management of the Society.

4. One person named as Dwarpal had filed Consumer Complaint No.18/2020 against the Society and one Jatinder Singh as opposite parties. The Society was sued through its President i.e. the petitioner. The District Consumer Commission vide order dated 19.10.2021 had allowed the complaint in following terms:

“11. Keeping in view above discussion the present complaint is allowed and opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable and directed to pay to complainant the maturity amount of Rs.9,65,424/- along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation of the amount, if already not paid. Since complainant was forced to file the complaint so compensation of Rupees 10,000/- is granted on account of mental tension and harassment and Rupees 8,000/- towards litigation costs. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, after its due completion be consigned to records.”

5. The Society intended to assail the aforesaid order of District Consumer Commission before the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (for short, “the State Commission”). The Misc. Application No. 182/2021 was filed before the State Commission for seeking exemption to deposit 50% of the awarded amount, which as per Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, was a pre-condition. The State Commission dismissed the aforesaid application of the Society by not granting it exemption to deposit the required amount.

6. The said Dwarpal has filed Execution Petition before District Consumer Commission, which has been registered as Case No.33 of 2021. In the said Execution Petition, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for deletion of his name on the ground that he was no more in the management of the Society and hence his name should be deleted and the Society should be sued through its Administrator. Learned District Commission vide impugned order dated 27.02.2024 though allowed the Administrator to be impleaded in the Execution Petition as a party, but the prayer of petitioner to delete his name has been rejected on the ground that he was the President of the Society at the time of filing of the complaint.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 10 of the Act to contend that a Society registered under the Act becomes a body corporate by the name under which it is registered having perpetual succession and a common seal and with power to hold property, enter into contracts, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary fo