Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 295
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
C. Viswanath, MR, Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, MR
BLOCK LAND & LAND REFORM OFFICER & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
BHUPATI RANJAN MITRA – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 1024 OF 2020
For the Petitioners: Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee
For the Respondent:
Public authorities must comply with court orders, and consumer forums have jurisdiction to hear matters involving public service deficiencies.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum - Deficiency of service - Allegations of non-compliance of High Court order and misleading replies under Right to Information Act - Court confirms maintainability of complaint and finds public authority deficient in service. (Paras 8, 9, and 11)
(B) Alternative Remedy - Rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of convenience, not law, and statutory bodies must adjudicate disputes they are bound to decide on merit regardless of alternative remedies available. (Paragraph 9)
Facts of the case:
The complaint arose from non-compliance with a High Court order and the failure to provide required information under the RTI Act by public authorities. The respondent alleged serious deficiency in service due to the delay in recording his name on reviewed land records.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient grounds for the maintenance of the complaint and confirmed the decisions of the lower Consumer Forums. The petitioners had indeed committed deficiency in service.
Issues: The key issues included the applicability of alternative remedies and the jurisdiction of consumer forums in matters involving public authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that compliance with High Court orders is obligatory for public authorities and dismissal of complaints on jurisdictional grounds was improper.
Result: Revision dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of counsel and preliminary review of the proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual background and grievances filed by the respondent. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. discussion on evidence and aspects of the complaint. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. issues of jurisdiction and application of law regarding deficiency in service. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. conclusion and the dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 12) |
1. Heard Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advocate, for the petitioners.
2. Office has reported that this revision has been filed with delay of 170 days. Supreme Court has directed that as a result of imposition of lockdown in the country due to pandemic Covid-19 as well as its affect throughout the country, the delay occurred during this period is liable to be condoned. Accordingly, the delay in filing the revision is condoned. The revision shall be deemed to have been filed within time.
3. This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Circuit Bench Siliguri, dated 25.02.2020, passed in Appeal No. A-15 of 2019 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj, dated 12.12.2018, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 32 of 2018), whereby District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, has allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.100,000/- as compensation including for mental harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation costs and the appeal of the petitioners, filed from the aforesaid order, has been dismissed.
4. The petitioners initiated a proceeding (registered as Vesting Case No. 156/9/1978) for vesting of the ancestral land recorded in the name of Brajgopal Mitra (father of the respondent) in the State and a vesting order was passed on 22.08.1981. The appeal and the revision filed by Brajgopal Mitra, against it, were dismissed. These orders were challenged in Writ LRT No. 1321 of 2002, which was ultimately allowed by Calcutta High Court, vide judgement dated 12.07.2006 and the orders of vesting were set aside. In the meantime, Brajgopal Mitra died and was inherited by his son Bhupati Ranjan Mitra. The respondent filed an application on 08.06.2011, before Block Land & Land Reform Officer, Itahar, Uttar Dinajpur (petitioner-1) for recording his name over the disputed land, in compliance of aforesaid order of High Court. Thereafter, he gave reminders dated 05.01.2012, 21.03.2012, 31.03.2012 and 10.06.2015 but nothing was done.
5. Thereafter, Bhupati Ranjan Mitra filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 , on 15.07.2015, seeking information of the order, passed on his application dated 08.06.2011, relating to compliance of the order of High Court. He again filed another application dated 13.08.2015 for information. Petitioner-1 informed the respondent on 31.08.2015 that his application was sent to Block Land & Land Record Officer, Kaliaganj, vide Memo No. Law/X/KLJ-09/450/15 dated 07.07.2015, for compliance. The respondent then filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 , before Block Land & Land Record Officer, Kaliaganj on 29.09.2015, seeking information of the order passed on his application dated 08.06.2011. Block Land & Land Record Officer, Kaliaganj vide letter dated 09.10.2015, informed that the land in dispute did not situate within his territorial jurisdiction, as such, he could not pass any order on it. The respondent then moved another application before Block Land and Land Reform Officer, Itahar, Uttar Dinajpur, seeking some other information.Block Land and Land Reform Officer, Itahar, Uttar Dinajpur through his letter dated 26.11.2015, informed that although vesting case was related to 6.48 acres land but record of that case was not available with him. The respondent was not satisfied with reply and filed an appeal before District Land & Land Reform Officer (petitioner-2) on 11.12.2015. Petitioner-2 then, vide his letter dated 29.12.2015, directed petition
