West Bengal Electronics Industry ... vs State Commission & Ors. on 24 November, 1999
5. What has been very strenuously contended on behalf of the writ petitioner is that no Consumer Forum or Commission can have Jurisdiction to entertain the present matter which does not come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and for that reason alone the Impugned order of the Consumer Commission Is liable to be set aside and quashed. On the other hand it is contended on behalf of the respondent Silicon Valley that the matter comes squarely within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act inasmuch as the allotment of plot for the purpose of development of Electronic Industries comes within the ambit of the definition of 'service' as contained in section 2(0) of the Consumer Protection Act which runs thus : "2(0). 'Service' means service of any description which Is made available to potential users and Includes ihe provision of facilities In connection with banking, financing, Insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or, both, housing construct Ion, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personnel service." The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the matter Is entirely a contractual one and Silicon Valley should approach Ihe civil court for specific performance of contract, If aggrieved by the action of the writ petitioner but the Consumer Commission has no Jurisdiction to entertain or decide that matter. It Is true that the matter is contractual but that by itself cannot be the reason why the Consumer Protection Act will not apply In the case, if from the facts and circumstances It Is found to be applicable here. Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that the provisions of the Act are In addition to and not In derogation of the provisions of any other law. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred to certain single Bench decisions of this court, namely, Larson and Tubro Ltd. v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, AIR 1998 Cal 313, and Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority v. Union of India, . It Is to be noted here that the said decisions were given in the facts of the respective cases.