Bombay High Court
Shri. Vinayak S/O Laxmanrao Uskelwar vs Smt. Ranjana W/O Suresh Feddewar on 19 April, 2018
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
WP4820.17.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.4820 OF 2017
PETITIONER: Shri Vinayak S/o Laxmanrao uskelwar,
aged about 82 years, occ: Nil, R/o Pipla
Road, near Savarbandhe Karyalaya,
Hudekeshwar, Nagpur.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT: Smt. Ranjana W/o Suresh Feddewar,
aged about 49 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o
Plot No.13, Saraswati Nagar, Near
Uskelwar ITI, Hudeshwar Naka, Nagpur.
Mrs. S. K. Paunikar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K. V. Bhoskar Advocate for the respondent.
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: APRIL 19, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 5-5-2009 passed by the Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur whereby the complaint filed by the respondent herein has been partly allowed and the petitioner has been directed to execute the sale deed of the property in question ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2018 01:26:20 ::: WP4820.17.odt 2/4 in favour of the respondent on receiving balance amount of consideration. The petitioner then filed First Appeal No. A/09/761 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and by order dated 5-10-2011 the said appeal came to be dismissed. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 2-6-2016 the said revision petition came to be dismissed on the ground that it was filed after the delay of about 1485 days.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgments in Harbanslal Sahnia and another vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd and others (2003)2 SCC 107 and judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Writ Petition No.399/2014 (Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. Tulsi Electronic, Opposite Police Station Main Road Korba and others) decided on 9-12-2016 submitted that it was open for the petitioner to challenge the original order dated 5-5-2009 passed by the Additional District Consumer Forum in the present writ petition. Merely because the appeal filed by the petitioner and the subsequent revision petition came to be dismissed would not be a ground for refusing to exercise jurisdiction in the present writ petition. It was submitted that the respondent was not a consumer and therefore no direction could have been issued against the petitioner to execute the sale deed in ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2018 01:26:20 ::: WP4820.17.odt 3/4 her favour.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that after availing the statutory remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it is not now permissible for the petitioner to again challenge that order before this Court. According to him, filing of the writ petition itself amounts to abuse of process of law and there is no case made out to exercise writ jurisdiction.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. It is not in dispute that after the Additional District Consumer Forum partly allowed the complaint on 5-5-2009 the petitioner had availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Commission after full opportunity dismissed that appeal and confirmed the order of the Additional District Consumer Forum. Further remedy of filing revision was also exercised by the petitioner and that revision petition was dismissed on the ground of delay.
5. In the light of the fact that the petitioner had availed the statutory remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and had failed in that attempt, it is not now permissible to again revert back and challenge the order of the Additional District Consumer Forum Nagpur before this Court. That order has merged ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2018 01:26:20 ::: WP4820.17.odt 4/4 in the order passed by the State Commission in the appeal and subsequently in the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 2-6-2016. In these undisputed facts, I do not find it a fit case to exercise writ jurisdiction. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are with regard to exercise of jurisdiction and provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the present facts the ratio of those decisions cannot be made applicable. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that the interim order granted on 25-7-2017 may be continued till 15-5- 2018 as the further proceedings are kept before the National Commission on that date. This request is opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Considering the fact that this Court had stayed the order dated 5-10-2016 by order dated 25-7-2017 the same shall continue to operate till 15-5-2018 and shall cease to operate thereafter. However, it is open for the Additional District Consumer Forum to proceed with the application filed under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
JUDGE /MULEY/ ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2018 01:26:20 :::