MIR Mubashir Shuja vs Abdul Samad Wani & Etc

Leave granted.

These appeals arise from a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dated 3 November 2015. Aggrieved by a decision rendered on 22 July 2014 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [SCDRC], the appellant filed a review petition on 28 August 2014. The review petition was withdrawn on 7 May 2015. On 8 May 2015, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 12 May 2015, in order to enable the appellant to file a statutory appeal under Section 17 of the Jammu & Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987. An appeal was filed on 10 June 2015. On 27 July 2015, the High Court directed the appellant to effect the statutory deposit of 25% of the amount payable under the order of the SCDRC. Deposit was effected on 29 July 2015.

The High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that a deposit in pursuance of a judicial direction was not valid in the eyes of law and that the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned.

Section 17 of the Jammu & Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987 provides as follows:

"17.Appeals.-Any person aggrieved by any order by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (I) of clause (a) of Section 15 may prefer an appeal against such order to the High Court within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

[Provided that such appeal shall be heard by not less than two Judges of the High Court:

Provided further that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

Provided also that no appeal shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate issued by the Chairman, State Commission to the effect that the appellant has deposited 25% of the amount payable under the order."

Under the third proviso to Section 17, no appeal shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate issued by the Chairman, SCDRC to the effect that the appellant has deposited 25% of the amount payable. The appeal was filed on 10 June 2015. Admittedly on 29 July 2015 the amount as required by the third proviso was deposited before the High Court in terms of the directions issued by the High Court on 27 July 2015.

The High Court, in our view, confounded the issue of deposit with the question as to whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. On the deposit which was effected by the appellant on 29 July 2015, the requirement of the third proviso to Section 17 was duly complied with. Whether the appellant has made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay will have to be decided by the High Court afresh in terms of the second proviso to Section 17.

In this view of the matter, we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 3 November 2015. The application for condoning the delay filed by the appellant shall now be considered afresh uninfluenced by any of the observations contained in the impugned order.

For the reasons we have indicated, the High Court shall proceed on the basis that the requirement of the third proviso to Section 17 has been duly complied with. In view of the fact that the dispute has been pending consideration for a considerable time, we request the High Court to take up the application for condonation of delay as expeditiously as possible.

The appeals are accordingly disposed of.