Calcutta High Court
Dr. Kunal Saha vs The State Consumer Disputes Redressal ... on 15 January, 2020
Author: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Bench: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
OD-10
WP 3 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
DR. KUNAL SAHA
Versus
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 15th January, 2020.
Appearance:
Mr. Srikanta Dutta, Adv.
Ms. Rituparna Sarkar Dutta, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Sutipto Panda, Adv.
Mr. Anand Farmania, Adv.
...for the respondent no. 1 & 2.
The Court : The petitioner has raised a grievance that the petitioner was labelled as a tout and obstructed from appearing for a third party, to represent the said third party in a proceeding before the state consumer disputes redressal forum, without offering any reason for such prevention.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits, on the strength of a judgment of the Supreme Court annexed to the present writ petition, as well as a notification dated February 13, 2014 being GSR 89(E), that Section 3 thereof provides that a party may authorize an agent or a non-Advocate to represent the said party subject to the four conditions stipulated in sub-Section (1) of Section 3 2 being satisfied. It is argued that since the petitioner satisfied the said conditions, the petitioner ought to have been permitted tp participate in the proceeding-in- question.
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Authorities takes a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the present writ petition in view of the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy in the form of a revision before the National Commission in the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the said authority refusing him permission to appear on behalf of a third party. It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities that the petitioner has levelled uncalled-for allegations in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the present writ petition against the quasi-judicial authority, against whom the present writ petition has been preferred, which is beyond the norms of natural justice as well as the decorum of Court.
In his limited reply on the short question raised at the outset by the private respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been specifically mentioned in paragraph 14 of the present writ petition that the petitioner was labelled with the adjective "tout" and abused in filthy language by the forum itself, for which the petitioner was constrained to make the allegations as enumerated in paragraph 15 and 16 of the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also prays for an interim order for being permitted to argue the case on behalf of the third party before the forum during the pendency of the present writ petition.
3
As regards the question of maintainability is concerned, the same is kept open for being taken at the final hearing of the present writ petition.
Regarding the allegations of certain unwarranted statements having been made in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition, learned counsel for the respondent is justified in arguing so, since it is provided in section 16(6) of the Notification dated May 31, 2005, bearing GSR 342 (E), that a consumer forum is to protect itself from touts and busy bodies in the form of power of attorney holders or authorised agents in the proceedings before it. Learned counsel for the respondent authorities has a point in that the consumer forum was within its right to make an observation that the petitioner was operating as a tout, in view of the petitioner's appearance in several matters before the forum on behalf of third parties, although the veracity of such finding is not gone into at the present stage. However, merely observing that the petitioner was a tout was not un- parliamentary, in the sense that the expression "tout" was itself embodied in one of the provisions of the aforementioned Notifications. Thus, the labelling of the petitioner as a tout cannot be construed ipso facto as an insult justifying the inclusion of paragraphs 15 and 16 in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, due to the unwarranted vitriolic words used in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the instant writ petition, the said paragraphs are deemed to stand expunged from the writ petition.
As far as the interim prayer is concerned, the same cannot be granted as this stage, since permitting the petitioner to participate in the proceedings before 4 the forum would tantamount to allowing the writ petition itself in final form, before hearing it on its merits.
Yet, in view of a prima facie case having upon made out by the petitioner to some extent, the petitioner is directed to file a supplementary affidavit disclosing as to whether the petitioner comes within the four corners of the conditions provided in section 3(1) of the Notification dated February 13, 2014, annexed at page 113 of the present writ petition, within a week from date, with an advance copy to the respondents.
It is made clear that in the said supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has to furnish all particulars and details as to the petitioner having fulfilled of the criteria as stipulated in clauses (a),(b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said notification and how he comes within the purview of those clauses.
Let the matter next appear for hearing on January 27, 2020 at 3.30 p.m. (SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.) SK.