NETAI MUKHERJEE & ANR. Vs. CALCUTTA DISTRICT FORUM & ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-1996-8-34
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 12,1996

Netai Mukherjee And Anr. Appellant
VERSUS
Calcutta District Forum And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.P. Sircar, J. - (1.)In this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India an order passed by Calcutta District Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Case No. 116 of 1994 before that Forum under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been challenged. The petitioners in this revisional application are the absolute owners of the premises situated at 20A, Monoharpukur Road, P.S. Lake, Calcutta - 700 029 and the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 7 are the tenants under them. The said opposite parties Nos. 3 to 7 submitted a petition before Calcutta District Forum in C.D.F. Case No. 116 of 1994 against proforma opposite parties Nos. 8 to 9 that is M/s. CESC Ltd. and its District Engineer (South) claiming that the said opposite parties should be directed to install meters separately for each of the tenants impleaded as the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 7 in the premises at 20A, Monoharpukur Road, P.S. Lake. Calcutta - 700 029 for facilitating consumption of electricity by each such tenant uninterruptedly. Subsequently, the owners -petitioners were impleaded in that case as opposite parties in order to facilitate installation of the motors separately for each of the tenants. The present petitioners raised objection against such prayer as there were already two meters from which the tenants were being supplied with power for their consumption and the space at the place did not provide any scope for installation of further meters. The present petitioners also alleged that the tenants did never have the habit of payment of charges for electricity consumed by them and the house owners had to face much trouble and swallow many abuses for their attempt to realise the dues from the tenants. An arrangement was made amicably that one meter should be installed in the name of the petitioner No. 1 in that C.D.F. Case from which the tenants would be supplied with electricity. But the tenants even after that agreement instituted the case in utter violation of the agreement. The Forum heard the matter on 12.4.94 in part and fixed it for further hearing on 5.5.94 but surprisingly without hearing the petitioners further on 5.5.94 that is on, the fixed date for further hearing, the Forum passed its verdict on 4.5.94 abruptly disposing of the matter and directing the CESC to install the meters as claimed by the tenants. The Officer -in -Charge. Lake Police Station was directed to provide protection for such installation. The aggrieved house owners filed this petition for revision of that order of the Forum on the aforesaid ground.
(2.)Both the parties contested the matter. The learned Advocate for the tenants -opposite parties submits that the Act. namely, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a complete Act providing hierarchy for the Forums and making adequate provision for appeals before the Forum with the higher authorities and as such Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked. The learned Advocate for the petitioner argues that although the District Forum fixed the matter for further hearing on 5.5.94 it abruptly delivered the verdict on 4.5.94 and thereby it has offended natural justice for which the provision of Article 227 of the Constitution can be attracted as the Act does not provide any such, provision in it. The learned Advocate for the opposite party argues that case in the Dist. Forum was filed under Sec. 12 of the Act and Sec. 15 of the Act provides for appeal against any wrong order passed by the District Forum against any erroneous order by the State Commission as provided under Sec. 15 of the Act an aggrieved person has been given the benefit of moving the -National Commission under Sec. 19 of the Act and against any order of the National Commission an aggrieved person is entitled to move the Hon'ble Supreme. Court under Sec. 23 of the Act. As the Act provides for redressal of the grievance by the superior Tribunal, there is no scope for attracting Article 227 of the Constitution. In support of his contention the learned Advocate for the opposite party relies on the ruling reported in (1), 1995 (2) Cal LJ 218; (2), 1995 (1) Cal LJ 124 and (3) Biswanath @ Deb Kumar Pathak v.s Shyamal Kumar. Pathak & Ors., 1995 WBLK (Cal) 7:, 1995 (1) Cal LJ 139. He argues that in all these cases this Court has repeatedly held that in identical cases Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be attracted.
(3.)I have gone through the rulings and the record. Although the petitioners claimed that their right to natural justice was offended by an abrupt order on 4.5.94, and that the master was left part heard and fixed for further hearing on 5.5.94, this allegation has not been established satisfactorily before this Court, as the petitioners have not produced any document to show that the matter was left part heard on 12.4.94 and any date for further hearing was fixed on 5.5.94. Hence, the point for violation of natural justice has not been substantiated. Taking into consideration the rulings relied upon by the learned Advocate for the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 7 and without any contrary ruling cited before me I cannot but hold that in this case Article 227 cannot be attracted as the Act provides definite forum for appeal and for settlement of the grievance against the order of District Forum. Accordingly, the revisional application should be and is rejected.
Parties do bear their own costs for this revisional case.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.