State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gondalpara Jute Mills Employees' ... vs Sri Mani Kamal Dey on 17 April, 2012
D R A F T
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND
FLOOR)
31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE
KOLKATA 700 027
S.C. CASE NO.
: RC/121/2011
Date of Filing : 01.12.2011. Date of Final Order :
17.04.2012
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
GONDALPARA JUTE MILLS
EMPLOYEES
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
represented by its
Ex-Chairman
SRI RAM CHANDRA CHOWDHURY,
S/o. Lt. Raja Ram Chowdhury,
Office at P.O. Gondalpara,
P.S. Chandernagore,
District. Hooghly.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
SRI MANI KAMAL DEY,
S/O. Lt. Ram Kamal Dey
of Flat No. C 1/301,
Peerless Nagar,
P.O. Panihati, PS. Khardaha,
Kolkata 700114.
BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas
Mukherjee,
President.
MEMBER : Sri
S. Coari.
MEMBER : Smt.
Mridula Roy.
FOR THE PETITIONER /
APPELLANT : Mr. Arun Kr. Gupta,
Ld. Advocate.
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. :
Mr. G. Gupta Roy,
Ld. Advocate.
: O R D E R :
No. 5/17.04.2012 S. COARI, MEMBER.
The revisional application has been preferred against the orders dated 01.09.2011, 30.09.2011 and 24.11.2011 passed by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Hooghly in Execution Case No. 11/2011 wherein the Ld. Forum after being satisfied that the notice of execution proceeding was duly served upon the O.P. Revisional Petitioner and Revisional Petitioner having ignored to appear before the execution proceeding issued a show-cause notice upon the O.P. Revisional Petitioner as to why the warrant of arrest would not be issued against it for non-compliance of the order passed by the Forum and as the O.P. Revisional Petitioner failed to submit any show-cause so ordered by the Ld. District Forum, the Ld. District Forum passed an order of warrant of arrest against the JDR Revisional Petitioner with a direction upon the O.C./I.C. Chandannagore P.S. to execute the warrant of arrest and report on 24.11.2011 along with a further direction that if the warrant of arrest is executed the O.P. be released on execution of bond of Rs.2,000/- on condition to appear before the District Forum on the date fixed and that on 24.11.2011 upon finding that the warrant of arrest was duly executed and that the O.P. Revisional Petitioner was released on a bond of Rs.2,000/- with an undertaking to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 24.11.2011, but yet as the O.P. Revisional Petitioner has neither appeared before the District Forum nor complied with the order passed by the Ld. District Forum and upon Revision Petitioner surrendering before the Ld. District Forum with a prayer for bail, Ld. District Forum by its impugned order dated 24.11.2011 granted interim bail of Rs.3,000/- with two registered sureties of Rs.1,500/- each in favour of the O.P. Revisional Petitioner i.d. to j.c.
By the aforesaid impugned order the JDR/Revisional Petitioner was directed to be personally present on the next date i.e. 05.12.2011 along with a further direction to comply the order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the Ld. District Forum.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such aforesaid orders the O.P. Revisional Petitioner has preferred the present revisional application on the ground that the impugned orders were passed without any justification and also in wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the Ld. District Forum. It is also pleaded in the revisional application that without invoking of Section 25 of the Act straightaway the provision of Section 27 of the Act has been invoked which is absolutely illegal and to the detriment of interest of the Revisional Petitioner and accordingly the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
The only moot question that revolves round the present revisional application is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified in passing the aforesaid orders?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Revisional Petitioner that the Ld. District Forum having exercised its jurisdiction illegally without any rhymes and reasons and without taking into account of the real controversy between the parties has committed gross irregularity and that by passing the aforesaid orders has also caused miscarriage of justice and on this score alone the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
The Ld. Advocate for the Revisional Petitioner has also submitted before us that Ld. District Forum has committed gross illegality in invoking the provision of Section 27 of the Act directly without invoking the provision of Section 25 of the Act which is not at all permissible under the law and on this score also the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submission so put forward on behalf of the Ld. Advocate for the Revisional Petitioner and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned order and find that while passing the impugned orders Ld. Forum has acted quite judiciously and also adopted extreme restraint before passing the impugned orders. When admittedly the O.P. was offered sufficient chances/opportunities to appear and contest the execution proceeding the O.P., for reason best known to it has failed to do so. The plea of non-service of notice upon the O.P. in this regard on the point of refusal as it is found from the postal endorsement on the notice itself clearly goes to show that Ld. District Forum was justified in accepting the same to be a good service. On careful perusal of the impugned orders we find no illegality or irregularity and in our opinion the impugned orders are quite legal, valid and sufficient and accordingly we are not inclined to interfere with the said orders. In view of the foregoing discussion we find no merit in the present revisional application which is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the revisional application fails. Hence, ordered that the revisional application stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.
MEMBER (MR) MEMBER (SC) PRESIDENT