Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, A.D. MARIA CLETE
Principal Chief, Conservator of Forest, Forest Head Quarters Building Near Kannikapuram Checkpost Guindy-Velachery Main Road Guindy, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
Vijayakumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the state's writ petition lacks basis due to statutory appeal provisions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. jurisdiction issues must be raised in proper forums, not through writ petitions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. writ petition dismissed; petitioners can file appeal instead. (Para 9) |
ORDER :
[S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
Under assail is the order dated 26.06.2024, passed in C.C.No.155 of 2023, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai.
2. Curiously, the State has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India knowing the fact that statutory appeal remedy has been contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and an appeal is to be preferred before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
3. Such writ petitions are filed with an idea to get over the period of limitation. Pertinently, Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, contemplates “Appeal”. Accordingly, any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed. Provided that the State Commiss
Statutory remedies under the Consumer Protection Act must be pursued instead of writ petitions, reinforcing the necessity of adherence to procedural requirements, including appeal and deposit of awar....
Writ petitions against District Consumer Redressal orders are not maintainable when an alternative remedy under the Consumer Protection Act exists, reinforcing the need to follow statutory appeal pro....
WhatsApp conversations cannot be read as evidence without there being proper certificate as mandated under Evidence Act, 1872.
Change in management does not condone substantial delay in filing appeals; society's obligation continuous.
The court held that maintainability and entertainability are distinct concepts, and a constitutional remedy under Article 227 can be pursued despite the availability of an alternative remedy under th....
Condonation of delay by imposition of costs justified.
Jurisdiction of State Commission - State Commission shall have jurisdiction to interfere when it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested ....
The State Commission cannot dismiss a complaint for non-appearance without deciding on merits as mandated by law.
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
