Mahaveer Bhandari vs Chief Pot Master, Senior Superintendent, Department of Posts, Chennai City North Division and The Director

G. Rajasuria, J.—Inveighing the order dated 15.12.2003 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CMP No. 249

of 2003 in APSR. No. 336 of 2003, this civil revision petition is focussed.

Heard both.

Niggard and bereft of details, the relevant facts, absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

The revision petitioner herein intended to prefer appeal before the State Consumer Redressal Commission impugning and challenging the order

passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai(South). However, there was a delay in filing such appeal and as such CMP

No. 249 of 2003 in APSR. No. 336 of 2003 was filed to get the delay condoned, but it was dismissed by the the State Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission vide its order dated 15.12.2003.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed on the main ground that the State Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission dismissed the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for getting the delay of 112 days condoned in filing the appeal as

against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, unjustifiably, without following the principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, reiterating the grounds as set out in the memorandum of revision, the learned Counsel prays for setting aside that order.

At the outset itself, I would like to refer to the following two precedents:

2002(1) CTC 15(Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Madras 600002 and two Ors. v. The District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Madras-1 and Anr.), certain excerpts from it would run thus:

As far as the first submission is concerned, it is settled law that before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is

the bounden duty of a person to exhaust all alternate remedies. At the same time, it is not as if this Court has no power to entertain the writ petition

when there are alternate remedies. before entertaining such writ petition, courts will see whether alternate remedy available is effective and further

whether the alternate remedy will be a long drawn process and whether the circumstances of the case required an immediate redressal to the

affected person. In cases where there are clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice or when authorities act totally without jurisdiction, court

will entertain writ petition and adjudicate the matter. But at the same time, it has to be pointed out that the Court exercising jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not take up the exercise of examining the disputed question of fact and render factual finding. Normally

once the writ petition is admitted, at the time of final disposal the court will not drive the parties to the appellate forum unless there are disputed

questions of fact and when all required materials are available before court.

R. Jaivel, The President, Mettupatti Multi Purpose Worker''s Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, , certain excerpts

from it run thus:

Arguing upon maintainability of this revision petition, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner again relied upon G. Rajamani v.

Petchimuthu and Ors., 2003 (1) CTC 300 and submitted that inspite of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, Revision under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India is not maintainable. In those cases, the question as to the maintainability of a revision under Article 227 de hors the

provisions made in Section 27 about the availability of appellate jurisdiction has not been dealt with; whereas the same was dealt with in a later

case Max Worth Homes Ltd. Vs. V. Raman, , in the following line:

The present order which is under challenge in the above revision came to be passed was only the said circumstances u/s 27 of the Act. As such it

cannot be suggested that no appeal shall lie as against the said order. Even otherwise, Section 21(b) of the Act confers wide powers to the

National Commission to call for records and pass appropriate orders in respect of any matter pending or orders passed by the State Commission

has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction

illegally or with material irregularity. In the light of such wide powers conferred upon the National Commission and in the light of the present facts

on hand, I am not inclined to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.

A mere perusal of those excerpts including the whole judgments would amply make the point clear that the Consumer Protection Act itself

provides for filing revision or appeal, as the case may be, before the National forum under the said Act and get redressed of the grievances by a

party concerned; while so, invocation of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the aggrieved person and filing of revision as against

the orders of the State Consumer Redressal Commission, would not lie. Hence, the revision is dismissed. However, it is open for the revision

petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, namely, the National Commissioner under the Act. No costs.