Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33730

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
,
Petitioner – Appellant
Versus
Respondent – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition | E.A.No.20 of 2023 in C.C.No.19 of 2021 | F.A. No. 321 of 2022 | F.A.No.530 of 2023 | Revision Petition No.811 of 2024 | CRP.No.1931 of 2011 | C.R.P. No. 1480 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Learned Additional Advocate General
For the Respondents: Learned counsel

A revision petition under Article 227 is not maintainable against orders under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 where a statutory appeal remedy under Section 73 exists, requiring exhaustion of the appeal before invoking writ jurisdiction.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 72, 73(1) - Execution of orders - Issuance of bailable warrant for non-compliance with District Commission's order - Availability of statutory appellate remedy under Section 73(1) - Non-maintainability of revision petition under Article 227 when statutory appeal is available - Reliance on judicial precedent emphasizing exhaustion of statutory remedy before invoking supervisory jurisdiction. (Paras 7, 9, 10, 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner acquired land through compulsory acquisition, which was disputed by original owners, leading to various writ petitions and administrative proceedings. The original owner sold land to respondent who sought No Objection Certificate (NOC) from petitioner. Petitioner's failure to act on respondent's request led respondent to file complaint before District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (DCDRC). After non-appearance of petitioner and ex-parte orders including monetary compensation and direction for NOC issuance, petitioner challenged final orders and subsequent bailable warrant issued under Section 72 for non-compliance before this Court via Civil Revision Petition under Article 227. (Paras 2, 8, 9, 12)

Findings of Court:
The Court emphasized that Section 73(1) provides a statutory appeal remedy against orders passed under Section 72 and that non-exhaustion of such remedy precludes invocation of Article 227. The Court found no illegality, irrationality, or impropriety in the DCDRC's order for issuance of warrant and dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the State Commission by appeal. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 13)

Issues: Whether a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 is maintainable against an order made under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, when a statutory appeal remedy under Section 73 is available.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that when a statutory appellate remedy exists, parties must exhaust the same before approaching the writ jurisdiction under Article 227. The order under Section 72 issuing a bailable warrant for non-compliance does not involve illegality or procedural impropriety warranting interference via revision. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12)

Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed as not maintainable.

Table of Content
1. petition filed seeking to set aside specific dcdrc order (Para 1)
2. factual background of land acquisition dispute and related consumer complaint proceedings (Para 2)
3. petitioner’s arguments on non-appearance due to election duty and precedent supporting setting aside order (Para 3 , 4)
4. respondent’s contentions on availability of statutory appeal remedy and maintainability of revision petition (Para 5)
5. legal provisions under consumer protection act sections 72 and 73 regarding non-compliance and appeal remedy (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
6. judicial precedents distinguishing appellate and revisional jurisdiction and requirement to exhaust statutory appeal (Para 10 , 11)
7. court’s analysis and conclusion on non-interference under article 227 given statutory appeal remedy (Para 12)
8. final order dismissing revision petition with liberty to file appeal and exclusion of limitation period (Para 13)

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 30.04.2024 made in E.A.No.20 of 2023 in C.C.No.19 of 2021 on the file of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Krishnagiri (in short “the DCDRC”).

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows :

a. There arose a dispute when the petitioner had proposed to acquire lands of the one K.Govindarajulu and others in the year 1991, notified the same in G.O. Ms. No. 137, dated 30.01.1991, in the year 1994 based on the award the petitioner had acquired the Land of the K.Govindarajulu in S.No. 518/1B and others under Land acquisition act.

b. The said K.Govindarajulu and others challenged the same in W.P. No. 19701 of 2008 seeking to quash call for records relating to Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Housing and urban Development Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai in its letter No. 26421/LA2(2)/06-4 dated 03.09.2007, to quash the same and direct the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Housing and urban Development Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai to restitute the K.Govindarajulu's land comprising in S. No. 518/1B and the same was allowed by this court vide order dated 21.08.2013. aggrieved by the same in the year 2019 the Petitioner had preferred a writ appeal and the same was kept pending vide Writ Appeal Filing Number 68371 of 2019 before this court.

c. Meanwhile, the K.Govindarajulu gave a representation on 20.03.2014 before the Secretary to the Government, subsequently had preferred a writ petition in W.P. No. 19391 of 2014 to consider the representation dated 20.03.2014 regarding issuance to the patta in favor K.Govindarajulu on lands in Survey Nos.517 an extent of 2.62 acres and 518/1B an extent of 2.42 acres, in Hosur Village and Taluk in Krishnagiri District and the same has been allowed on 22.07.2014. Subsequently, the Principal Secretary to Government issued letter to K.Govindarajulu directing him to approach the respondent for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' (in short NOC) and then approach the Special Thasildar, Town Settlement Office, Hosur for issuance of Patta.

d. The said K.Govindarajalu, had sold the property in Survey No. 518/B Plot No. 27 to the respondent herein and respondent had sent a representation to the petitioner dated 24.11.2020 to issue NOC, in which the petitioner had sent a reply letter to respondent requesting him to send additional two sets of relevant documents and pay a sum of Rs. 1,180/- through demand draft. The Respondent herein sent documents and demand draft but the Petitioner had neither issued NOC nor rejected the representation of the respondent and the respondent had further sent a reminder letter dated 19.04.2021 to the Petitioner.

e. Aggrieved by the actions of the petitioner the respondent filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Krishnagiri District in C.C. No. 19 of 2021, seeking to direct the petitioner to issue 'No Objection Certificate' and to pay Rs.2 Lakhs as compensat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33730

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS,Petitioner – AppellantVersusRespondent – RespondentCivil Revision Petition | E.A.No.20 of 2023 in C.C.No.19 of 2021 | F.A. No. 321 of 2022 | F.A.No.530 of 2023 | Revision Petition No.811 of 2024 | CRP.No.1931 of 2011 | C.R.P. No. 1480 of 2022

A revision petition under Article 227 is not maintainable against orders under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 where a statutory appeal remedy under Section 73 exists, requiring exhaustion of the appeal before invoking writ jurisdiction.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
,
Petitioner – Appellant
Versus
Respondent – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition | E.A.No.20 of 2023 in C.C.No.19 of 2021 | F.A. No. 321 of 2022 | F.A.No.530 of 2023 | Revision Petition No.811 of 2024 | CRP.No.1931 of 2011 | C.R.P. No. 1480 of 2022