TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER, JALANDHAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KAPURTHALA

THIS revision petition has been filed by the Telecom District Manager, Jalandhar, challenging the legality of the orders passed by the District Forum, Kapurthala, dated 25.7.1991 and 29.8.1991 in Misc. Application No. 46 of 25.7.1991.

THE petitioner is the opposite party in the complaint. Hereinafter, reference to the petitioner in this revision will be as opposite party. THE respondent will be referred as the complainant respondent will be referred as the complainant. The complainant Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, filed a complaint before the District Forum, Kapurthala, averring therein that the District Manager Telephones, Jalandhar and S.D.O. Telephones, Kapurthala, be restrained from issuing further connection for Public Call Office for S.T.D. facility in Kapurthala town and the President of the District Forum passed the order dated 25.7.1991 in the following terms: - "Heard. The respondent District Manager Telephones Jalandhar and SDO Telephones Kapurthala are restrained from issuing further connections for Public Call Office for STD facility in Kapurthala Town till further orders. Notice of application be given for 8.8.1991 to the respondents. A copy of this order be given dasti for effecting service on the respondent as required."

Aggrieved by this order the revision has been filed by the opposite party. We have heard Shri A.S. Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Gulwant Rai, Clerk, for the complainant. We have also carefully considered the written arguments submitted by the complainant.

THE only question involved in this revision is whether the District Forum can issue such a direction to the opposite party. It is well settled by a catena of cases of the National Commission, New Delhi, that the reliefs which the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums can grant are only those specified in Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''the Act''). THE relief which the complainant has sought is not covered by the reliefs mentioned in Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that a relief that cannot be granted under Section 14(1)(d) even by a final order, cannot be given by a Redressal Forum by means of an interlocutory order. In this view we are also fortified by a decision of the National Commission in National Dairy Development Board v. Consumer Protection Council and Ors. (First Appeal No. 74 of 1990 decided on June 5, 1991). We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the District Forum has acted illegally and with material irregularity in passing the impugned order. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition accordingly allowed.