Statutory functions do not constitute 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act, rendering complaints against governmental actions non-maintainable.

1. The complainant in C.C. No. 256/2020 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha (District Commission for short) is the appellant. This appeal is filed against an order dated 16.2.2021 in I.A. No. 16/2021 finding that the complaint was not maintainable. The Interlocutory Application appears to have been filed for the purpose of considering the question of maintainability of the complaint as a preliminary issue. Accordingly, as per the order under appeal, the complaint has been dismissed as not maintainable. A review petition preferred by the appellant has also been dismissed with costs.

2. The facts in this case fall within a very narrow compass. The appellant is the owner of an extent of 9.71 Ares of property in Vayalar Panchayat. He is residing in a building situate in the said property. He wants to make some additional construction or extension to his house. For the purpose, he submitted an application to the Panchayat in February 2019 along with a plan of the proposed construction. But the Panchayat did not pass any orders on his application on the ground that in the BTR of the village the property was described as wet land (Nilam). The appellant therefore submitted an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Alappuzha in Form No. 6 as stipulated by S.27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Paddy Land and Wet Land Act for short). The application was submitted by him on 22.10.2009. He paid a fee of Rs.1,000 also.

3. The 1st respondent was working in J Section of the office of the RDO, Alappuzha and the 2nd respondent was the Junior Superintendent and immediate supervisor of the 1st respondent. According to the appellant, the respondents had by their misdeeds delayed the passing of final orders on the application for an unreasonably long period of time thereby committed deficiency in service. It is stated by the appellant that, the cause of action of his complaint was inaction on part of the respondents in processing the application submitted by him showing disregard continuously to the applicable law and rule. Therefore, he sought for compensation and reimbursement of his expenses.

4. The complaint was contested by the respondents. They also filed I.A. No. 16/2021 questioning the maintainability of the complaint itself and requesting that the said question be considered as a preliminary issue. According to them, the 1st respondent was working in J. Section of the office of the RDO, Alappuzha and the 2nd respondent was the Junior Superintendent and immediate supervisor of the 1st respondent on the date of submission of application by the appellant. S.27A of the Paddy Land and Wet Land Act empowers the RDO to effect changes in the village records regarding the description of the land. The rules framed under the enactment prescribe the manner in which the application for change of nature of land has to be made and details the procedures to be followed in considering and disposing of such applications. Therefore, according to the respondents, they were Govt. servants functioning under the control of the Government, subject to the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules. Their duties and responsibilities are prescribed by law. They have not rendered any personal service to the appellant for consideration either directly or indirectly. Payment of the fee prescribed does not amount to consideration. Therefore, it was contended that the complaint was not maintainable against them under the Consumer Protection Act. They also contended inter alia that all the allegations made against them were baseless and that they had