Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this petition.

8. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short CPA) came into force on 24th December, 1986. Section 3 of CPA provides additional forum to a consumer. But the question that arises for consideration is in view of the Provisions of Pondicherry Act, District Forum for that matter State Commission could have exercised their jurisdiction.

9. It is not disputed that Pondicherry Act is a valid piece of legislation. This Act is a complete code for assets, liabilities etc. of the Textile Undertaking i.e. the Anglo-French Textiles Ltd. State Commission, in our view, did not properly consider the impact of its order on the working of the Pondicherry Act. Such an order is not only against the provisions of the Pondicherry Act but is bound to disturb the very fabric of that Act. A valid law has provided as to how payment is to be made to different categories of persons from the available amounts with the Commissioner of Payments. Commissioner of Payments is a quasi judicial body and his order is appealable. It is not understood as to how a complaint could have been filed and entertained against him as opposite party by the District Forum and then by the State Commission. It has not been shown how under CPA provisions of Pondicherry Act can be set at naught. For any right of the complainant provisions of the Pondicherry Act have only to be looked into. As a matter of fact, the impugned orders have not only made the complainants to jump the queue but in fact are in breach of the provisions of the Pondicherry Act.