Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tapas Dutta vs National Consumer Dispute Redressal ... on 24 April, 2019
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
1
31 24.4.2019 MAT 329 of 2019
Aloke/G.S.Das
Ct. no. 1 with
CAN 3318 of 2019
Tapas Dutta
versus
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission &
Ors.
Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharyta
... for the appellant
Mr. Jakir Hossain
Mr. Molla Asraful Zamal
... for the Respondent No. 5
Mr. Moti Sagar Tiwari Mr. Jayanta Kr. Dhal ... for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta Ms. Soumiguha Thakurta ... for the Respondent No. 4 We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. We have perused the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. We also see that there are some materials on record which apparently show that the writ petitioner had acted in some manner at some point of time which may not be conducive before the adjudicating fora.
Be that as it may, the learned single Judge has not refused to exercise jurisdiction on any discretionary reason but has merely stated that this writ petition need not be dealt with by exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction because the writ petitioner sought to proceed against the members of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and seeks permission to lodge an FIR against them.
The purpose of the writ petition in hand is not that. For whatever it's worth, the writ petitioner has raised an issue as to whether the invocation of revisional jurisdiction by the National Consumer Disputes 2 Redressal Commission in terms of the Consumer Protection Act is permissible or not. The primary question will be as to whether such issue can be raised in this writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. This is all the more so because the statute itself provides remedy by way of an appeal before the Supreme Court. Such position notwithstanding, having regard to the judicial spectrum exercised under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution, we are persuaded to think that this is one of such cases where the learned single Judge ought to have considered the writ petition on reasons de hors what is stated in the order dated 8th February, 2019 which is impugned in this writ appeal.
We haste to add that we do not express any opinion on the merits or demerits of the writ petition and, we request the learned single Judge to consider the writ petition in accordance with the law including the question as to whether or not the extraordinary writ jurisdiction needs to be exercised under the given situation.
For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated February 8, 2019 in WP No. 2648(W) of 2019 requesting the Learned single Judge that the writ petition be considered de novo.
We are carrying out this exercise without detaining the writ petition for further adjudication at this end because the writ petition is at its threshold of consideration. We request the learned single Judge to consider the writ petition afresh after providing an opportunity to the parties to place pleadings on record. 3
The appeal and the application are accordingly disposed of.
(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, CJ.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)