Chandrani Sarkar vs Sudipa Chowdhury & Ors

Shivakant Prasad, J

The petitioner has prayed for expeditious disposal of first appeal being No.A/885/2019 pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal arising out of judgment dated 28.02.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas in CC/10/2014.

It is submitted by Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the appeal has been heard by the State Commission on 11th March, 2020 after the appeal was admitted. Thereafter, as there was no corum on the date fixed for delivery of judgment, it could not be possible for the State Commission to deliver the judgment on 18.03.2020. So, the Consumer Commission has deferred the date fixing on 26.03.2020 for delivery of judgment. The matter relates to superintendence by this Hon''le Court over the Tribunal. Undoubtedly, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over all the Tribunals in India. But pertaining to the issue relating to the merit of the case, the Supreme Court on many occasions has held that since the statute provides for an appeal or a revision against an order of the State Consumer to the National Commission, the High Court should not entertain under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is not relating to the merit touching the jurisdiction of the commission but the fact remains that the judgment is being delayed and the petitioner will be ousted from the flat of which she is the lawful owner and she will suffer irreparable loss and injury. I can understand the agony of the petitioner but the State Consumer Redressal Commission is alive to this situation and I feel and hope that the commission has very promptly heard the matter on consent of the parties on the day, the appeal was admitted and registered after condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. In a situation like this, this cannot be said that the consumer commission has any way shifted from its obligation to deliver of the judgment since the corum was not there on the day adjourned for the judgment. It has been due to the situation which has cropped up, is because of the ongoing outbreak of corona virus and pandemic situation due to covid - 19.

Therefore, I do not find any ground or reason to entertain such an application for direction to the consumer commission for expeditious disposal of the first appeal because of the appeal has already been heard on the date was registered and the judgment is ready for the delivery. But, it could not be delivered as I stated above due to no corum as reflected from the order dated 18th March, 2020.

Now, this Court finds that the lock down has been lifted and there is every likelihood that the consumer commission will attend its normalcy on and from 8th June, 2020, so obviously, the Commission will dispose of the judgment on its merit.

Thus, CO 1116 of 2020 and CAN 3153 of 2020 are disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.