BARODA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs AKHIL BHARTIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT LTD.

THIS Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 1.4.1992 passed by the President of the State Commission, Gujarat sitting singly whereby he rejected the plea put forward by the opposite party in the case (Revision Petitioner herein) for determination for certain questions raised by him as preliminary issues before the State Commission proceeds to adjudicate the complaint petition on the merits. Even under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act as they now stand after the recent amendment introduced in 1991 it is mandatory that any order of the State Commission in order to be legally valid should be passed by the President of the State Commission sitting along with at least one other member. Since this mandatory requirement has been violated while passing the impugned order, it must be held that the order under Revision before us is illegal and devoid of jurisdiction.

QUITE apart from what has been stated above, we find that the ground on which the plea of the opposite party for determination of certain preliminary questions has been disallowed by the President of the State Commission is that those questions have already been decided by the Commission under an earlier order and the Commission had no power to review the said earlier order. The earlier order referred to by the State Commission is said to be dated 17th September, 1991 a copy of which is available in the paper-book filed before us. On going through that order we find that far from considering the preliminary points raised on the merits what the State Commission has done in that Order was only to state that it would be far more convenient to decide all the questions together at one stretch when the petition is finally heard; in other words there was a mere postponement of the consideration of the preliminary objections raised by the opposite party. In our opinion, having regard to the nature of the preliminary objections taken by the opposite party it is just and proper that those questions should be determined as preliminary issues before the State Commission proceeds to adjudicate upon the merits of the complaint petition. One of the preliminary questions raised is that since the complainant No.2 is a direct brother of one of the members of the State Commission who has been sitting on the bench and hearing the present case by reason of both interest and bias he is disqualified from hearing the case. Another point taken is that the complaint petition is hopelessly barred by limitation which plea, if upheld, would obviate the necessity of an adjudication of the complaint on the merits. The third point raised relates to the question whether there has been any hiring of service for consideration as between the second petitioner and the Baroda Municipal Corporation so as to entitle the second petitioner to invoke the remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, especially when no deficiency is even alleged in the complaint petition. We make it clear that we do not express any opinion on the merits of the aforesaid objections but we must say that the State Commission would have done well to consider these objections raised by the opposite party at the preliminary stage as requested for by the opposite party. The order dated 1.4.1992 impugned in this Revision Petition is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the State Commission, Gujarat, for being proceeded with in the light of the observations and directions contained in the above order. The Revision is allowed as above. The parties will bear their respective costs. Revision allowed.