Dynasty Walford Ltd. vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

V.D. Gyani, J.—By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 20.1.98 passed by the Assam Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guwahati in C.A. No. 112/97 and the order dated 31.7.97 passed by the District Forum, Kamrup in C.P. Case No. 34/97 and also prays for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari.

Notice of motion was issued vide order dated 27.2.98, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. On the same day learned Govt. Advocate Mr. Sharma accepted notice on behalf of the State Government, Respondent No. 2 and raised a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the petition, which seeks to challenge order dated 20.1.98 passed by Respondent No. 3 the State Commission constituted u/s 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act). Although vide order dated 27.2.98 it was directed to take steps for service of notice, but as per registry''s report dated 9.3.98, no steps were taken by the Petitioner. Be that as it may, it is not on this ground that the petition is being dismissed. There many other weightier reasons.

Heard Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner invoking Article 226 of the Constitution has challenged the order dated 20.1.98, passed by Respondent No. 3 dismissing the appeal preferred by the Petitioner confirming the order passed by the District Forum with cost of Rs. 2,000/- with a direction to the Petitioner to pay the amount of compensation as awarded with cost, within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the Petitioner shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

It is an admitted position that the Petitioner has filed a Revision Petition against the aforesaid order dated 20.1.98 before the National Commission.

Although it was argued by learned counsel that no right of appeal is available to the Petitioner, a mere glance at Section 19 of the Act would convince any one of the existence of a statutory right of appeal, against orders passed by the State Commission, of course it is limited to Sub-clause (1) of clause (a) of Section 17 of the Act, but the Petitioner has admittedly filed a revision petition and at the same time involving the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of the same subject matter, he cannot be allowed to simultaneously prosecute two parallel remedies.

Counsel for the Petitioner urged that he is not on the quashing of impugned order alone, he has also challenged the Constitution of the State Commission and the validity of Rules. So far as Constitution of the Commission is concerned, there is absolutely no substance in the argument. Section 29A of the Act itself provides a complete answer. No act or proceeding is rendered invalid on account of any defect or vacancy in relation to Constitution of the Forum or Commission.

Secondly, the in validity of appointment of any member or President of the Commission arising either from want of qualifications or violation of legal conditions or procedure for appointment, cannot be called in question in any collateral proceedings as opposed to direct proceedings. The members whose appointment is challenged in this petition, are not personally made parties to this petition. No such challenge can therefore be entertained (See Gokaraju Rangaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,

In view of the foregoing discussions, this petition totally devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed, it is accordingly dismissed.