Madras High Court
M/S.Vijay Constructions vs Mrs.P.R.Leena Mary on 11 August, 2010
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.08.2010 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(NPD).SR.No.41507 of 2010 M/s.Vijay Constructions rep.by its Prop. G.Vijayakumar Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049. Petitioner Vs. 1. Mrs.P.R.Leena Mary 2. U.Gandhi Respondents Civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the exparte order/award dated 04.03.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), Mylapore, Chennai-4 in C.C.No.202 of 2008. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Balasubramanian ORDER
Inveighing the exparte order dated 04.03.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), Mylapore, Chennai-4 in C.C.No.202 of 2008, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding maintainability.
3. At the outset itself, I would like observe that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this revision in view of the earlier two decisions of this court reported in
1. 2002(1) CTC 15 (Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Madras 600 002 and two others vs. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras-1 and another) and
2. 2006(2) CTC 709 (R.Jaivel, the President Mettupatti Multi Purpose Worker's Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Namakkal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Vellore) and certain excerpts from those two decisions would run thus:
1. 2002(1) CTC 15 (Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Madras 600 002 and two others vs. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras-1 and another) "8. As far as the first submission is concerned,it is settled law that before approaching this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is the bounden duty of a person to exhaust all alternate remedies. At the same time, it is not as if this court has no power to entertain the writ petition when there are alternate remedies. before entertaining such writ petition, courts will see whether alternate remedy available is effective and further whether the alternate remedy will be a long drawn process and whether the circumstances of the case required an immediate redressal to the affected person. In cases where there are clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice or when authorities act totally without jurisdiction, court will entertain writ petition and adjudicate the matter. But at the same time, it has to be pointed out that the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not take up the exercise of examining the disputed question of fact and render factual finding. Normally once the writ petition is admitted, at the time of final disposal the court will not drive the parties to the appellate forum unless there are disputed questions of fact and when all required materials are available before court."
2. 2006(2) CTC 709 (R.Jaivel, the President Mettupatti Multi Purpose Worker's Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Namakkal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Vellore) "16. Arguing upon maintainability of this revision petition, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner again relied upon G.Rajamani v Petchimuthu and others, 2003(1) CTC 300: 2003(2) LW 363 and submitted that inspite of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. In those cases, the question as to the maintainability of a revision under Article 227 de hors the provisions made in Section 27 about the availability of appellate jurisdiction has not been dealt with; whereas the same was dealt with in a later case M/s.Max worth Homes Ltd. v. V.Raman 2005(2) CTC 258: 2005(3) LW 455, in the following line:
"The present order which is under challenge in the above revision came to be passed was only the said circumstances under Section 27 of the Act. As such it cannot be suggested that no appeal shall lie as against the said order. Even otherwise, Section 21(b) of the Act confers wide powers to the National Commission to call for records and pass appropriate orders in respect of any matter pending or orders passed by the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the light of such wide powers conferred upon the National Commission and in the light of the present facts on hand, I am not inclined to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution."
A mere perusal of those excerpts including the whole judgments would amply make the point clear that the Consumer Protection Act itself provides for filing revision or appeal, as the case may be, before the specially constituted forum concerned under the said Act and get redressed of the grievances by an aggrieved; while so, invocation of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the aggrieved person as against the orders of the District/State Consumer Redressal Commission, would not lie.
4. Hence, in view of the aforesaid precedents, I am of the considered view that this court cannot interfere in this matter and entertain the revision and accordingly, the revision is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum under the Consumer Protection Act. No costs. Office is directed to return the relevant papers to the learned counsel for the petitioner immediately.
vj2 To The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai (North), Mylapore, Chennai 4