C.R.KATARIA vs CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL DISTRICT FORUM, PATIALA And OTHERS

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated June 5, 1991, whereby the appellant was held guilty of his contemptuous act by disobeying the ad interim order dated March 15,1991, passed by the District Forum, Patiala and was accordingly convicted under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and was sentenced to one month simple imprisonment.

AGGRIEVED by that order, the appeal has been filed by the appellant-opposite party challenging the above mentioned order. Mr. P.N. Arora, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable for the reason that Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short ''the Act'') provides for appeal before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum under Section 14 of the Act and as no order has been passed under Sec. 14 of the Act by the District Forum, appeal against the interlocutory order is not maintainable. It is correct that the District Forum has not passed any order under Section 14 of the Act as proceedings under Sec. 13 of the Act have not been concluded as yet. Section 15 of the Act is conspicuously silent as there is no reference to the order made by the District Forum under Sec. 14 of the Act. Be that as it may, we do not consider it necessary to make a probe in the matter for the reason that under Sec. 17(b) of the Act the State Commission has jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State where appeals to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Even if the appeal is not maintainable, we can still treat and decide the same as revision. Preliminary objection is accordingly overruled.

Amolak Singh filed a complaint dated 15th March, 1991, purporting to be under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the District Forum, Patiala for various reliefs and alongwith it some documents were filed. On the same day, the District Forum passed an order of ad interim injunction whereby the appellant was restrained from disconnecting the telephone in question till 4.4.1991. Notice of this order was served on the appellant on the same day. The appellant filed his reply on 24.4.1991 and admitted having disconnected the telephone of the complainant on 26.3.1991 and the reason given by him for doing so, was that since the complainant had not paid his subsequent bill dated 11.2.1991 for Rs. 888/-and as such his telephone was disconnected. He, however, further submitted that when he was informed that the stay had been granted, the telephone was immediately restored on 1.4.1991 as a special case pending clarification whether the stay was only for the bills in dispute or it was a blanket stay order. The aforesaid reason given by the appellant was not found to be convincing by the District Forum and accordingly it convicted and sentenced him as noted above.

AT the outset, the learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the appellant has tendered an unqualified apology and thrown himself at the mercy of this Court. This is borne out from the affidavit filed in his behalf. It is beyond doubt that the disobedience of the order of the Court essentially includes all acts which bring the Court into disrepute or disrespect or which offends its dignity, affront its majesty or challenge its authority. We are quite conscious of the principle that the proceedings for contemptuous act should be initiated with utmost reserve but no Court in due discharge of its duty can afford to ignore it. We emphasise and it is wroth emphasizing that no officer of the government, however, high or exalted he may be, can take upon himself the responsibility of judging the correctness or the validity of the order of any Court and if he honestly and bona fide in the discharge of his function feels that the order is erroneous or requires any modification, the only remedy open to him is to approach that Court by way of review or modification or a higher Court by way of appeal or otherwise. Apart from that, it is not open to him to take upon himself the responsibility of judging the order and take any action contrary to or inconsistent with the same on the basis of his own judgment. If once the officer is permitted or allowed to do any such thing that will mean the end of the very principle of rule of law on the basis of which the entire fabric of our democratic society has been constructed. If the appellant had some misapprehension in his mind, he could have approached the District Forum and drawn the attention of the Court to the peculiar and particular circumstances in which the stay order should not have been granted. Such a step has not been taken by the appellant. The only question that remains for consideration is, whether in the circumstances of this case any further action is called for in the light of the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant. He has expressed remorse on his conduct. The appellant has put in about 30 years of service and is almost at the fag end of his career. Because of the very peculiar circumstances of the case and the contrition expressed by the appellant, we accept his apology. We. accordingly allow the appeal, set aside his conviction and sentence and close the proceedings. The appellant is, however, warned to be careful in future but this will not affect his service career. Appeal allowed.