JUDGMENT

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. — 1. These appeals emanate from the judgment dated 4.9.2002 delivered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1147 and 1425 of 2002. We propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment because same questions of law are involved in these appeals.

BRIEF FACTS:

2.A complaint bearing no.428 of 2000 of alleged deficiency in service was filed before the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai (for short, Consumer Forum) against the two tour operators. During the pendency of the complaint, applications were filed by the opposite parties contending that the authorized agent should not be granted permission to appear on behalf of the complainants as he was not enrolled as an Advocate. The Consumer Forum considered the applications and held that the authorized agent had no right to act and plead before the Consumer Forum as he was not enrolled as an advocate.

3.In complaint bearing no.167 of 1997 filed before the Consumer Forum, the majority expressed the view that the authorized agents have a right to file, act, appear, argue the complaint to its logical conclusion before the Consumer Agencies. The issue was taken to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, State Commission) which stayed the hearing of the matters in which authorized agents were appearing and refused to grant stay where authorized agents were injuncted from appearing before the Consumer Forum. As a result, the proceedings in a large number of cases where the authorized agents were appearing had come to standstill.

4.The interim order passed by the State Commission was challenged in two writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. The petitions were allowed by the Division Bench. The High Court held that the Consumer Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have “trappings of a civil court” but “are not civil courts within the meaning of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

5.The High Court in the impugned judgment held that a party before the District Consumer Forum/State Commission cannot be compelled to engage services of an advocate.

6.The High Court further held that the Act of 1986 is a special piece of legislation for the better protection of the interests of consumers. The Act has been enacted to give succour and relief to the affected or aggrieved consumers quickly with nil or small expense. The Consumer Forum created under the Act of 1986 is uninhibited by the requirement of court fee or the formal procedures of court – civil or criminal…..any recognized consumers Association can espouse his cause……Even the Central Government or State Governments can act on his/their behalf…restrictive meaning shall not be consistent with the objectives of the Act of 1986… The right to appear, therefore, includes right to address the Court, examining, cross-examining witnesses, oral submissions etc..

7.The Division Bench also held that the right of audience inheres in favour of authorized agents of the parties in the proceedings before the District Consumer Forum and the State Commission and such right is not inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.

8.The Division Bench also observed that the right of an advocate to practise is not an absolute right but is subject to other provisions of the Act. According to the Division Bench, permitting the authorized agents to represent parties to the proceedings before the District Forum/State Commission cannot be said to practise law.

9.The Division Bench also held that there are various statutes like Income Tax Act, Sales Tax Act and the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act which permit non-advocates to represent the parties before the authorities under those Acts and those non-advocates appearing before those Forums for the parties cannot be said to practise law. The Rules of 2000 framed under Act of 1986 permit authorized agents to appear for the parties and such a