Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Universal Consortium Of Engineers ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 September, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
09
08.09.2017
W.P. No. 23027(W) of 2017
KC
M/s. Universal Consortium of Engineers (P) Limited & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Uday Chandra Jha
Ms. Maheswari Sharma
Ms. Tulika Banerjee.
... for the petitioners.
Mr. Sakya Sen
Mr. Tapas Ballav Mondal.
... for the State.
Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Pal
Mr. Bandhu Brata Bhula.
... for the respondent no. 4.
The challenge in the writ petition is directed against the appellate forum exercising jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The challenge is lack of jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum in view of the provisions of Section 12A of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993.
Learned advocate for the petitioner relies upon an order dated June 30, 2017 of this Court passed in W.P. No. 1248(W) of 2017 (M/s. Sanu Construction & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) and submits that, the Consumer Forum had assumed jurisdiction in respect of a subject over which it did not have the same. Moreover, he submits 2 that, since there are contrary views, it would be appropriate that the issue may be referred to a Larger Bench as done in M/s. Sanu Construction (supra).
The private respondent is represented.
Learned advocate for the private respondent submits that, a contract was entered into in 2001 and the developer has not adhere to such contract till date. The private respondent is a senior citizen. He relies upon (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286 (Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel & Anr. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Limited & Ors.) and submits that, the National Commission has jurisdiction over the subject.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
The issue involved is whether Section 12A of the Act of 1993 ousts the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under the Act of 1986 or not. There are contrary views over the subject. Considering such contrary views, in M/s. Sanu Construction (supra) the Court referred the issue to a Larger Bench for consideration. The issue of ouster of jurisdiction under Sections 6 and 12A of the Act of 1993 as contended in the writ petition is not the issue in Lourdes Society Snehanjali 3 Girls Hostel (supra). The same, therefore, cannot be read as an authority to say that, the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum exercising jurisdiction under the Act of 1996 has jurisdiction over a subject notwithstanding Sections 6 and 12A of the Act of 1993.
In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to refer the issue to the Larger Bench as done in M/s. Sanu Construction (supra). Since petitioner has made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner, the impugned order need not be executed till disposal of the writ petition.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)