R.K.D.F. Institution of Science and Technology vs Pavan Pratap Singh and Others

Krishn Kumar Lahoti, J.—Petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition directing the District Forum Consumer Protection, Bhilwara (Rajasthan) not to proceed further with complaint No. 118/2011 Pavan Pratap Singh Rajput vs. Vice Chancellor.

A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the complaint No. 118/2011 pending before District Forum Consumer Protection, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

Any other relief or reliefs that this Hon. Court feels fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be kindly passed.

The matter relates to quashing a complaint filed before the District Forum Consumer Protection, Bhilwara (Rajasthan) The contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid forum is having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complaint case filed before it bearing No. 118/2011 is not maintainable. It appears that the cause of action arose at Bhilwara where the complaint has been filed against the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner can be redressed if an objection is filed before the forum about territorial jurisdiction. If the objection is decided against the petitioner by the District Forum Consumer Protection, Bhilwara then the petitioner is having efficacious alternative, statutory remedy of filing appeal against the aforesaid order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the son of the respondent was admitted in the college of the petitioner at Bhopal, the entire complaints relates to Bhopal and the cause of action also arose at Bhopal so this petition may be entertained by this Court for the quashment of the complaint filed before the District Forum Consumer Protection, Bhilwara. He has also read over the contents of the complaint filed before the aforesaid forum to show that the cause of action arose at Bhopal and not at Bhilwara so this petition can be entertained to quash the complaint filed at Bhilwara. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others,

Facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 had appeared in P.E.T. for the year 2009 and was given admission in the college of the petitioner. That, some dispute arose between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner, the respondent had left the studies, filed a complaint for the refund of the fees and also for compensation before the District Forum Consumer Protection, Bhilwara. In the aforesaid complaint a notice has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has rushed to this Court for the quashment of the aforesaid complaint. If the petitioner is of the opinion that no cause of action has arose with in the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum Consumer Protection, Bhilwara, petitioner may raise all these objections before the aforesaid forum by filing an objection but as at present as the matter is subjudice before the aforesaid forum, it would not be appropriate for this court to entertain this petition for quashment of the complaint. In case the petitioner''s objections are turned down, petitioner is having remedy of filing appeal before the State Forum of Rajasthan. Even if the contention of petitioner is accepted that the entire cause of action arose at Bhopal and no cause of action arose at Bhilwara then the appropriate remedy to the petitioner is to raise this objection before the Forum at Bhilwara, who can decide such an objection after hearing the other side.

In the case of Navinchandra (supra), the factual position was entirely different. It was the case of quashment of an FIR which was lodged at Shilong, it was sought to be quashed at Mumbai. In the aforesaid case, the writ petition was filed at Bombay High Court for the quashment of the criminal complaint against the petitioner but the Bombay High Court had dismissed it on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. In that case the petitioner was seeking direction for the transfer of criminal investigation to the Mumbai Police. Considering the aforesaid facts, the Apex Court has held that the part of cause of action had arose at Mumbai and directed that such petition could have been entertained at Mumbai but in the present case the factual position is entirely different. The judgment is not applicable in the present case.

Recently the Apex Court has considered the similar controversy in SLP (Civil) No. 24228-24229 of 2012 on 6.8.2012 [Cicily Kallarakal vs. Vehicle Factory], considering the similar facts held thus:-

Despite this, we cannot help but to state in absolute terms that it is not appropriate for the High Courts to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the Commission, as a statutory appeal is provided and lies to this Court under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Once the legislature has provided for a statutory appeal to a higher court, it cannot be proper exercise of jurisdiction to permit the parties to bypass the statutory appeal to such higher court and entertain petitions in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even in the present case, the High Court has not exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law. The case is one of improper exercise of jurisdiction. It is not expected of us to deal with this issue at any greater length as we are dismissing this petition on other grounds.

In view of the law settled by the Apex Court in Cicily Kallarackal (supra), we find that this Court should not entertain this petition for quashment of a complaint pending before the District Forum Consumer Protection, Bhilwara, in Rajasthan, accordingly this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the grievances.

Though, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this petition may be entertained by this Court as question of jurisdiction of the District Forum Consumer Protection, Bhilwara, is involved in this case but in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Cicily Kallarackal (supra) we are not inclined to entertain the aforesaid contention and dismissed this petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of the grievances. In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss this petition with costs.