W.P.Nos
Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C. SARAVANAN, J.
The Joint Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli - Appellant
Versus
The President/District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli - Respondent
W.P.(MD) Nos. 21614, 21616, 21621, 21622, 21627, 21628, 23500, 23501, 23503, 23505, 23507, 23508, 23510, 23514, 23518, 23519, 23521, 23528, 23531, 23536, 23537, 23543, 23545, 23547, 23550 & 23553 of 2019 & W.M.P.(MD). Nos. 18316, 18321, 18331, 18332, 18335, 18338, 20132 to 23137, 20139, 20141, 20144, 20145, 20147, 20152, 20157, 20165, 20162, 20172, 20173, 20174, 20177 & 20178 of 2019
Decided On : 18-03-2022
Prohibition - Consumer Complaints - TNGST Act - Section 54 - The court discussed the principles of joinder, mis-joinder, and non-joinder of parties in the context of consumer complaints and highlighted the applicability of Section 54 of the TNGST Act for refund of excess tax.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions were filed seeking a Writ of Prohibition to prevent the 1st respondent from proceeding with consumer complaints against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the consumer complaints and directed the District Consumer Forum to delete the petitioner's name from the complaints.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was a necessary or proper party in the consumer complaints filed by the 3rd respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of joinder, mis-joinder, and non-joinder of parties, as well as the applicability of Section 54 of the TNGST Act for refund of excess tax, in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the District Consumer Forum was directed to delete the petitioner's name from the consumer complaints.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 1st respondent from proceeding with the complaint in CC.No.96/2019 on the file of 1st respondent against the petitioner.
Common Order:
1. These writ petitions have been filed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise for a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 1st respondent from proceeding with the consumer complaints. The petitioner has been arrayed as one of the respondents before the 1st respondent, District Consumer Forum by the 3rd respondent in an action against the 4th respondent in the following cases:-
| S.No | W.P.Nos | C.C.No | Complainant |
| 1 | W.P.(MD) No.21614 of 2019 | C.C.No.96 of 2019 | M.Muhammad Abubakar Siddik |
| 2 | W.P.(MD) No.21616 of 2019 | C.C.No.108 of 2019 | K.Sermakani |
| 3 | W.P.(MD) No.21621 of 2019 | C.C.No.91 of 2019 | M.Mydeen Pitchai |
| 4 | W.P.(MD) No.21622 of 2019 | C.C.No.106 of 2019 | K.Maheswaran |
| 5 | W.P.(MD) No.21627 of 2019 | C.C.No.97 of 2019 | D.Joseph |
| 6 | W.P.(MD) No.21628 of 2019 | C.C.No.109 of 2019 | K.Pulithurai |
| 7 | W.P.(MD) No.23500 of 2019 | C.C.No.132 of 2019 | P.Murugan |
| 8 | W.P.(MD) No.23501 of 2019 | C.C.No.133 of 2019 | S.Velu |
| 9 | W.P.(MD) No.23503 of 2019 | C.C.No.134 of 2019 | P.Palavesam |
| 10 | W.P.(MD) No.23505 of 2019 | C.C.No.137 of 2019 | P.Karuvelamuthu |
| 11 | W.P.(MD) No.23507 of 2019 | C.C.No.142 of 2019 | M.Mohammed Abubakar Siddik |
| 12 | W.P.(MD) No.23508 of 2019 | C.C.No.135 of 2019 | P.Ganapathy |
| 13 | W.P.(MD) No.23510 of 2019 | C.C.No.219 of 2019 | M.Esakkimuthu |
| 14 | W.P.(MD) No.23514 of 2019 | C.C.No.159 of 2019 | A.Kumar |
| 15 | W.P.(MD) No.23518 of 2019 | C.C.No.139 of 2019 | G.Muthukumar |
| 16 | W.P.(MD) No.23519 of 2019 | C.C.No.141 of 2019 | E.Appathurai |
| 17 | W.P.(MD) No.23521 of 2019 | C.C.No.136 of 2019 | L.Ranjith Kumar |
| 18 | W.P.(MD) No.23528 of 2019 | C.C.No.138 of 2019 | P.Lakshmanan |
| 19 | W.P.(MD) No.23531 of 2019 | C.C.No.140 of 2019 | M.Ganesan |
| 20 | W.P.(MD) No.23536 of 2019 | C.C.No.187 of 2019 | C.Maharaja |
| 21 | W.P.(MD) No.23537 of 2019 | C.C.No.188 of 2019 | D.Joseph |
| 22 | W.P.(MD) No.23543 of 2019 | C.C.No.127 of 2019 | C.Maharaja |
| 23 | W.P.(MD) No.23545 of 2019 | C.C.No.129 of 2019 | C.Maharaja |
| 24 | W.P.(MD) No.23547 of 2019 | C.C.No.128 of 2019 | D.Joseph |
| 25 | W.P.(MD) No.23550 of 2019 | C.C.No.186 of 2019 | C.Maharaja |
| 26 | W.P.(MD) No.23553 of 2019 | C.C.No.171 of 2019 | P.Venkatesan |
2. There is no representation on behalf of the 3rd respondent, the complainant before the Consumer Forum and in this proceeding despite service of notice. The 3rd respondent had initiated proceedings before the Consumer Forum. In all these cases, the 3rd respondent alleged deficiency of services by the 4th respondent hotels in the respective writ petitions.
3. Though the writ petitions have been filed for a prohibition, it appears that appropriate remedy against the order of the Consumer Forum rejecting the request for deleting the name of the petitioner was available to the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as wide power has been vested with this Court in its power of Superintendence of all Court. On the other hand, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner.
4. The 1st respondent/District Consumer Forum ought to have examined the issue as to whether the petitioner herein was either a necessary party or the proper party in the consumer complaints filed for the alleged deficiency of service by the respective hotels (the 4th respondent in the respective writ petitions) in the complaints filed by the 3rd respondent in these writ petitions. Though the pro
An employee under a contract of personal service cannot be considered a 'consumer' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.
The Commercial Taxes Department is not liable for GST imposed by the Hotel Management beyond the prescription of the GST Act, and the Consumer Forum should not entertain unnecessary proceedings again....
Every litigant has the right to a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves in a proceeding, and a hyper technical approach in passing orders should be avoided.
The District Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints, including issues of maintainability, and writ petitions to quash such complaints are not permissible unless the Forum is defunct....
The High Court's jurisdiction to intervene in consumer disputes is limited and should not be exercised if effective statutory remedies are available.
WhatsApp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being proper certificate as mandated under Evidence Act, 1872.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked where effective alternative remedies exist, especially in consumer disputes; exceptions are limited and clearly defined.
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