[REFERRED TO ] Go To Cited At

SHIV SHAKTI CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY NAGPUR VS. SWARAJ DEVELOPERS

(1)2003-AIR(SC)-0-2434 (2)2003-SCC-6-659 Referred to

SURYA DEV RAI VS. RAM CHANDER RAI

(1)2003-AIR(SC)-0-3044 (2)2003-SCC-6-675 Referred to

SWETAMBAR STHANAKWASI JAIN SAMITI VS. ALLEGED COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SRI R J I COLLEGE AGRA

(1)1996-AIR(SC)-0-1209 (2)1996-SCC-3-11 Referred to

DURGA PRASHAD VS. NAVEENCHANDRA

(1)1996-SCC-3-300 (2)1996-JT-3-564 Referred to

[CITED AT] Go To Referred To

Referred To | Cited At

2006-AIR (MP)-0-81 , 2006 (TLS)1404815

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Coram : K. K. LAHOTI

W. P. 912 Of 2005

(MARCH 10, 2005)

SURYA PRASAD SHUKLA VS. M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

( 1 ) PETITIONER has sought following reliefs in this petition :-1 ). That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned order dt. 24-1-2005 (Annx. P/6) passed by the first respondent and restore that of the order dated 1-3-2004 (Ann. P/4) by issuance of orders, directions, writs in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other writ deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2 ). Any other relief deems fit in the circumstances of the case including cost of the proceeding may also be awarded. "

( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order passed by State Consumer Dispute redressal Commission, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in appeal no. 710/04 Annexure P-6. By the aforesaid appeal, the State Commission reversed the order passed by District Consumer Dispute redressal Forum, Rewa in case No. 253/03 dt. 1-3-04 Annexure P-4. The order has been assailed by the petitioner on various grounds enumerated in the writ petition.

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute before me that against the order of State Commission, a revision lies before the National Commission under S. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'act') but the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the availability of the remedy of revision, this petition may be entertained. He has placed his reliance to Apex court judgment in Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society, Nagpur v. M/s. Swaraj Developers and others (AIR 2003 SC 2434) and division Bench judgment of this Court in rewaram Hiralal Sarbarkar and others v. Registrar, Public Trusts, Narsimhapur (1961 mplj 1081) and contended that this petition may be entertained.

( 4 ) FROM the perusal of the petition it appears that the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order touching the merits of the case. In the grounds it is not stated that the District Forum or State Commissioner was having no jurisdiction to decide the matter or has committed any error of the jurisdiction. The order has been assailed apparently on factual parts and also on legal issues. The National Commission has powers to call for records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which has been decided by the State Commission where it appears to be National Commission that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Section 21 of the Act gives the power to the national Commission which are akin to the provisions of Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil procedure.

( 5 ) NOW the question arises whether in the circumstances when the remedy of revision is available to the litigants, whether writ jurisdiction can be exercised at this stage without availing the remedy of revision. The apex Court in Swetambar Sthanakwasi Jain samity and another v. Alleged Committee or Management Shri R. J. I. College, Agra (1996) 3 SCC 11 : (AIR 1996 SC 1209) held thus (Para 8) :"we are of the view that the High Court not only fell into patent error but also exceeded its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the constitution of India. Though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the constitution is not confined to issuing the prerog

Click Here to Read the rest of this document