- (1.) THE two petitioners in this writ petition dated February 14th, 2008 taken out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are seeking a writ of certiorari quashing (a) the Consumer Case No. 23 of 2006 that was allowed on contest by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Abasbari, Tamluk, Purba medinipur by its final order dated March 28th, 2007, and (b) the Execution case No. 14 of 2007 initiated before the forum for execution of its order dated march 28th, 2007.
(2.) THE consumer case was registered on the basis of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lodged by the sixth respondent, Sri Nakul Chandra Sahu, with the forum in 2006. The first and second among the five opposite parties in the complaint were Sri Bishnupada barman and Sri Bhakti Binod Samanta, the chairman and the secretary respectively of one Garh Moyna Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. , a co-operative society registered within the meaning of the provisions of the West bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. It was alleged that the first and second opposite parties in the complaint failed and neglected to pay the monies which had become payable once the fixed deposits of the complainant matured. The first and second opposite parties in the complaint contested the case by giving their version of the case in writing. They took the plea that in view of the provisions in Sections 95 and 134 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies act, 1983 the forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. By the order dated March 28th, 2007 the forum rejected the plea and allowed the complaint. The first and second opposite parties therein were directed to pay the amount with interest. Since the amount was not paid, the complainant lodged an execution application on June 20th, 2007. Consequently the execution case was registered.
(3.) ON receipt of notice of the complaint the opposite parties therein did not invite the forum to decide the question of maintainability of the complaint as a preliminary issue. They rather decided to get decision on the question at the time of final disposal of the case registered by the forum. They did not lodge any appeal to the State Commission, though in view of the provisions of section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 they were entitled to do that. Section 15 provides as follows : "15. Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed: provided that the State Commission 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 further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms'of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the state Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent of that amount or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less. ";